Letter: No referendum here

Sir: I am surprised that you should advocate a referendum on the results of the 1996 intergovernmental conference on the European Union; amazed that you should cite the Maastricht referendums as a precedent. Consider the campaigns by the supporters and (particularly) the opponents of the treaty.

The Irish campaign was conducted simply on the basis of the additional aid Ireland would receive as a result of the treaty's ratification: an important issue for the Irish voter, but unconnected with the improvements in the EU's structures the treaty was supposed to bring about. The French campaign was worse, fought on issues such as the CAP and Franco-German relations, which were not even mentioned in the treaty.

The Danish government went to great lengths to inform all voters of the content on the treaty. Despite this, the campaign revolved around purely local issues. The voters expressed their opinion on these issues - and a second referendum had to be organised to force them to change their minds.

A referendum may be appropriate where there are genuinely only two courses of acton, or for countries such as Switzerland which have a tradition of direct democracy and local forums where these issues may be debated. It is not suitable for complex issues where the campaign can be highjacked by unscrupulous politicians and journalists seeking to express everything in Jack and Jill terms.

Yours faithfully, PHILIP FAWCETT Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire