It's the season of the Nice vote, and, though it's autumn, the rhetoric is as thick as sap in winter. Vote No, says the Yes camp, and we'll have unimaginable calamity. Vote Yes, says the No camp, and we'll have Biblical plagues descend upon us. Karlin Lillington reports.

Maybe we should all just move to Belgium and have all responsibility removed from our shoulders.

Assuming we're staying here, though, this is an issue voters really must think through carefully, especially the business consequences. There are many other angles to the decision, of course, but how a Yes or No might affect business is crucial as we continue in an economic downturn and the Government faces some bleak funding choices in upcoming budgets.A number of technology figures in the State, including Dr Chris Horn and Mr Sean Melly, have noted that a No vote could be disastrous for business and the economy. IBEC is urging a Yes vote, as is the Institute of Directors.

Many arguments can be put forward as to why a Yes vote is important in business terms. Some say access to burgeoning eastern European markets will be truncated, for example. There's much made of the "goodwill" our EU partners are supposed to feel towards the Republic, which supposedly gives us more influence than our size might warrant, and how this could be gutted.

I don't know whether a given vote will affect either of those things. There seems to be a belief, high up in the Commission, that European enlargement will happen anyway, just on a longer trajectory. In other words, of course there is a Plan B of sorts - no politician or administrator in his or her right mind would neglect to think through all the scenarios that could lie ahead.

So could the Government please stop patronising us by suggesting the European government hasn't considered various options. If our own Government isn't savvy and politically realistic enough to have a Plan B following a No vote, it doesn't deserve to be governing.

If we vote No, I believe we may risk having frustrated European colleagues take revenge by stripping Ireland of its special low corporate tax, which riles all the rest of them. As I understand it, the Nice treaty guarantees that states can set their own taxing strategies. If we are cornered into taxing at a common European level, our industry here and our ability to draw multinationals would decline immediately, as Eastern Europe, Asia and other EU states such as Britain would no doubt have equally or more tempting environments.

I've also heard a slightly different take: even if Ireland votes No - which would definitely cause problems and delays for the reorganisation needed for the admittance of the new "accession states" - other EU states will not seek the Republic's head on a platter (though we might willingly give them Bertie's and Charlie's anyway, just for the craic). Why? Because, first of all, the State has been a strong contributor to the European project and would still be seen as an important participant and ally, especially by states of similar size and outlook, such as Denmark. Secondly, a new treaty will need to be drawn up and ratified here somewhere down the line and other states would be loath to damage relations with the Republic and annoy us further, thus risking us taking out our ire with a third No vote.

From a business perspective, I have a feeling that what really matters is not what could happen if there's a No vote, but the perception abroad of what the Republic is saying by casting a No vote. I spoke recently to a senior analyst in the US who says that there's enormous interest from the American corporate world in the Nice vote here. US companies are trying to understand why the State voted No once, and why it might do so again.

A No vote sends very confusing signals. It is seen as a total reverse of the marketing message the State has given multinationals for over a decade (the commitment to low corporate tax, the strong membership and support of Europe, young Ireland as young Europeans, and all the rest). A No vote would be perceived by outsiders as a defection from Europe by the Irish people and a weakening of our ability to influence European affairs, especially by US multinationals constantly encouraged to think of the Republic as a euro-zone gateway.

Should people cast a vote simply because of what multinational corporations will think? Of course not. But people should not underestimate the damage that will certainly be done to the Republic's attractiveness for foreign investment if the vote swings to No.

Overall? I think the actual administrative effect of a No vote will feature small against the perceived effect. The perceived effect would be damaging, at least in the short term, to inward investment. Ireland is an export nation heavily reliant on its multinationals, particularly in the tech sector, and any pullback on investment at this vulnerable point would be extremely worrying.

Karlin's weblog: http://radio.weblogs.com/0103966/