Voting No to Nice could be a contribution to democracy. Having signed the Treaty of Nice, Brian Cowen delivered a broadside on RTE News against anyone foolish enough to advocate a No vote in any forthcoming referendum. He declared that marginal groups with a limited vision of where this country's interests lie would suggest we vote No, but that the majority would not be in agreement with them.
Blustering words, considering that 38 per cent of those who voted decided to vote No to Amsterdam, and criticism of the EU is far greater now than in 1998. Some of that may be for the wrong reasons, such as a growing realisation that our new-found wealth means we will be net contributors. Others with a right-wing economic perspective are deeply suspicious of the social democratic model advocated by the EU. Whatever the reasons, Ireland is not the embarrassing fawning Europhile country it once was.
There is one difficulty for those looking at Brussels with slightly less rose-tinted glasses. Traditionally, opposition has been spearheaded by Eurosceptics who would frankly prefer to see us out of the EU entirely. They have done us a service by keeping debate alive when all the larger political parties sang from the same hymnsheet, as did the unions, employer organisations, women's groups and so on.
However, total Euroscepticism remains difficult for the average citizen to identify with. We are inextricably bound up with the EU enterprise. In treaty after treaty we have reaffirmed our commitment. We owe much to Europe, though not as much as our European partners would like to think. We have also reached a stage where we can give something back. What is badly needed is a platform for those who hold the middle ground, who recognise that we are part of the EU but that it does not mean we have to be swept along simply because we are small.
Should we automatically vote Yes to Nice? Certainly not. The Danish ministry of justice has declared there is no need for a referendum in Denmark, much to the fury of Danish Euro-critics. It looks as if we alone will hold a referendum, even if the Government decides to fudge by holding three referenda on that day. That means the eyes of other members will really be on us, instead of our just fondly imagining they are.
This is an important moment. Brian Cowen may have scoffed at what he termed "marginal groups" but the word marginal might better be applied to Ireland's status after the Treaty of Nice. We did not do too badly, given our population, in the redistribution of votes in the Council of Ministers. Still, Nice represents a move away from the classic vision of Jean Monnet and the other founding fathers which saw the nation states as equal, to one where the weight of population holds most sway.
This clearly benefits Germany, which managed to insert a veto into the treaty. If a member country can show that a decision made by a qualified voting majority had been opposed by representatives of countries with at least 39 per cent of the EU's population, that decision can be set aside. Thus Germany acting with another large member-state and any third member-state excluding Luxembourg could block decisions unfavourable to them.
More and more, Germany has become the engine driving the direction of the EU. Insofar as there is one coherent German view, it is towards federalism. Germany itself is federalist, so, for example, there is no national policy on education. Instead it is decided at the level of each state. Superficially, this appears like an attractive model. However, it requires a degree of integration and interdependence for which there appears to be no popular mandate.
The most cynical of the Eurosceptics would declare that it represents a bloodless "Germanification" of Europe. Germany would retain the powers it deems essential for its own good, while at the same time dominating the use of the powers which it and the other states would have to cede to the centre. That is somewhat simplistic, but like all simplifications it may well contain an element of truth.
BOSTON versus Berlin remains the wrong argument. While Mary Harney and others would like to see us embrace the can-do, entrepreneurial culture of the US, there is no appetite here to embrace the lack of social protection which accompanies this model. The true argument is Dublin versus Brussels. What is the nature of national sovereignty? How can we retain distinctively Irish ways of conducting our affairs while contributing to a healthy and democratic EU?
In the midst of a horrific foot-and-mouth crisis, it is fascinating to see the appeal being made to concepts such as patriotism to encourage people to make sacrifices to keep the disease out. In spite of Celtic Tiger individualism, the notion of acting collectively for the good of the country still holds sway.
The EU has no such well to draw upon, no such feeling that it is important to sacrifice for the greater good of the Community and that we are all in this together. Witness the French unilateral action in deciding to compensate French farmers for BSE losses. The EU is in many ways a bureaucratic monster, lacking accountability to the peoples of the nations which comprise the Community.
Nice therefore represents a unique opportunity for the people of Ireland to make a symbolic gesture. In Eurocrats' minds, Nice is a foregone conclusion. The focus is already on the next intergovernmental conference in 2004, where "definition of competences" are the buzzwords. This basically means defining where the powers of the EU versus the nation states begin and end. But should we not be doing this before Nice?
By voting No, Ireland has an opportunity to give voice to the unease of many Europeans. Such a vote should not result from a fit of pique over a Budget reprimand. Centralisation of power, the democratic deficit and the increasing militarisation of the EU deserve centre stage. And maybe we could have a civilised debate this time, where Euro-critics will not be treated as fascist isolationists, but as people wishing to contribute to a more democratic Europe.
bobrien@irish-times.ie