World View: Material interests are commonly assumed to dominate and explain political behaviour. They certainly provide the agenda for most of our political life.
Economic development, exports and markets, taxation, agricultural subsidies and finding the resources to finance welfare, education and health expenditure absorb many media headlines in Ireland, reflecting Government decision-making and popular concerns.
It is therefore a mark of how serious the Nice Treaty debate has become to find it increasingly dominated by material issues. This week the head of the Industrial Development Authority, Sean Dorgan, warned in his annual report that a second No to Nice would "be seen and represented as a withdrawal by Ireland from the European consensus". It would directly affect foreign investment in Ireland, because as a small trade-dependent member-state "our economic prospects are tied to an intimate and central involvement in the EU".
Writing in this newspaper about the European Commission's radical mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, which has many serious implications for farmers' income and welfare, the Minister for Agriculture,Joe Walsh, warned against those who see a No vote on Nice as the best way to register a protest about these proposals. "All my ministerial career has been in the agricultural area. I am completely dedicated to Ireland's agricultural interests . . . The way to ensure that I as minister will have the strongest negotiating hand in the months ahead is to vote Yes to the Nice Treaty."
The governor of the Bank of Ireland, Laurence Crowley, had a similar message when he addressed its annual general meeting on Wednesday. He said a second No would do "irreparable damage" to the Republic's interest and also to the interests of the bank of Ireland and its shareholders.
These warnings come after a series of speeches by Bertie Ahern that Ireland's basic economic interests would be jeopardised by a second No. He spelled the message out starkly to Microsoft employees when he opened a new facility shortly after the general election, in the presence of the US Ambassador, Richard Egan. He had the same message in a speech to the IBEC executive. At the EU summit in Seville he was equally outspoken, saying he would not want to be "handcuffed" and isolated from potential allies by another No to Nice when he goes into negotiations on the CAP reform package.
Mary Harney, spoke at a trade seminar along the same lines, emphasising how closely related exports and investment are to Ireland's assumed central place in the EU. That applies particularly to US investment, including reinvestment in existing plants such as Microsoft.
This point is significant coming from Ms Harney, given her sponsorship of the debate about Boston and Berlin, which fed into the Nice referendum last year by suggesting that Ireland might have to choose between them. It is now clear to her that Boston will cease to be so interested in Ireland if it is not fully connected with Berlin through the EU. That includes the ability to protect Ireland's low taxation regime.
In many ways this message echoes the one that was influential in last year's referendum from the right-wing of the anti-Nice campaign: "You will lose! Power, Freedom, Money! Vote No to the Treaty of Nice." The very opposite case is being put now by the Yes side, as the second campaign gets solidly under way. Power, it is argued, is centrally concerned with the ability to shape the international environment in which Ireland operates, as the world's most open small economy, which last year topped the world globalisation league table published by Foreign Policy magazine.
Pooling sovereignty amplifies freedom rather than diminishing it. An effective EU is in Ireland's basic interests: the single market which sustains Irish exports and therefore foreign investment and high employment could not have been created without majority voting. Those who say maximum freedom is asserted and protected by unanimous voting and the veto simply miss this point about the real operation of influence in a globalised world.
A country seen to be walking away from that reality would find itself rapidly classified as politically uncertain by the risk assessment agencies on which investors commonly rely. A number of them are looking very closely indeed at Ireland's second referendum campaign as they decide how to assign their ratings this year.
Money will also be lost by a second No vote, the argument runs. Investment, employment and trade depend on political predictability. Agricultural transfers depend on being fully involved in the mainstream of decision-making. Mr Walsh used the example of a vote at a local GAA or golf club to exclude people who wanted to join and whom all existing members wanted to come in. If that happens "then it is natural that I would not be too popular and that I would lose my influence". When Ireland votes in late October or early November the other 14 member-states will have ratified the treaty and the enlargement negotiations will be nearly completed. Realistically, an Irish No would be bound to affect the timing of the enlargement process in those political circumstances. Pointing this out in an RTÉ interview during State visit to Greece the President, Mrs McAleese, said: "Greece, like our European partners, is very anxious that the timetable would be adhered to. Clearly, the passing of the Nice Treaty is pivotal to that." She was pilloried by No campaigners for intervening improperly in the campaign. She subsequently issued a statement affirming her impartiality and complaining that the context of her remark - about timing - had been mischievously or deliberately misinterpreted. Mr Dorgan was similarly criticised. But the Dublin Labour MEP, Proinsias De Rossa, made the point that Mr Dorgan "has an important role in attracting new jobs to Ireland. His knowledge about the employment consequences of a No vote needs to be heard".
That is a sensible answer to such intolerance. Now that interests have been brought so much to the centre of the debate about Nice and the EU , having been surprisingly absent from it before, it will be up to the No side to respond substantively rather than denying people the right to say what they believe. It will be up to both sides and the media, to validate their claims. Ireland's willingness to accept free movement of workers from the candidate states from day one of their accession does not mean that millions will therefore come. It's time the argument moved on to a more mature level.
