I am sorry to be bothering readers with my second offering on the Treaty of Nice, and not forgetting the other referendums on the death penalty and the international court. If you can bear with me, please read on.
Dissent has a good enough history in our country and it is important that we have an articulate anti-Nice lobby. The Green Party, Sinn Fein and the few remaining Reds among us are leading the anti posse. John Gormley of the Greens and Anthony Coughlan have given what may appear to be cogent reasons to say No and are good at what they are doing.
I do hope they lose their arguments, however, as Nice is far too important not to pass electoral muster.
However, I suspect that in some dark corner of Sinn Fein headquarters on Parnell Square there lies a yellowed sheaf upon which the words "Briefing Note - Arguments Against EEC Membership" are manually typed. It lies there untouched and barely noticed for years on end, until a referendum on some aspect of our relationship with Europe is mooted. At that stage, it is hurriedly reached for and its contents pored over for regurgitation, before being returned to the dark, until next time.
Those same arguments, which Sinn Fein and Eurosceptics everywhere have used since 1973, are back in the headlines. While the rest of us attempt to grapple with the details of the treaty in the final few days before the referendum, those with an ideological opposition to the notion of Europeans working together can relax in the early summer sun.
They do not seem to have examined the treaty itself, as the arguments they advance are against the Treaty of Rome, not Nice. They are simply not relevant to Thursday's referendum. They are using Nice to advance arguments against the very notion of European co-operation.
Take the issue of Irish military neutrality. The Treaty of Amsterdam contained the important safeguard for Ireland that European Union security and defence policies "should not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policies of certain member-states". The Treaty of Nice would not alter this position.
For years now, Irish troops have served us proudly abroad, on missions which have the sanction of the United Nations and the approval of Dail Eireann. I was minister for defence when the Oireachtas passed this legislation a number of years ago. UN and Dail sanctions are, and would still be, required for Irish troops to operate overseas. We would remain militarily neutral after ratification of the Treaty of Nice.
The text of the treaty has not dissuaded our home-grown Eurosceptics from advancing the idea that ratification would spell NATO subjugation. In fact, it contains only four articles which relate to the area of European security and defence policy.
Article 17 would eliminate reference to the Western European Union in order to reflect its diminished role in the area of security and defence policy. Ireland is not a member of the Western European Union, so there are no implications for Irish neutrality here.
Article 24 would give treaty basis to a new political and security committee to monitor the international situation and to contribute its opinions to the setting of policies. No danger to our neutrality here.
ARTICLE 25 deals with the use of qualified majority voting in the conclusion of international agreements. Since any member-state can exercise "constructive abstention" and decline to be bound by any proposal adopted, this would pose no danger to our neutrality.
Finally, Article 27 deals with the possibility of using enhanced co-operation in the area of security policy. Irish opposition has meant that this article excludes matters relating to defence or military issues. In any case, the use of enhanced co-operation would require a decision of the European Council which could be blocked by any member-state, including Ireland. Plainly, our military neutrality would be safe.
So why the Sinn Fein poster adorned with tanks and the word "NATO"? Why the assertion by the Greens that the Treaty of Nice is in any way connected with the issue of Irish military neutrality? Again, they are using this treaty to advance perverse arguments against the Treaty of Rome and the very notion of European co-operation. These arguments are not relevant to the Treaty of Nice.
The treaty itself is explicit in its raison d'etre: "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam of preparing the institutions of the European Union for enlargement". Twelve European countries want to join our Union, as we did, back in 1973. The recent history of many of these countries is one of dictatorship. The simple truth, the core message in this referendum, which the Greens and Sinn Fein have yet to seriously grapple with, is that a Yes vote on Thursday would be a Yes to these countries.
Europe has been divided since the second World War, and the Treaty of Nice, by facilitating enlargement, would enable us to end that cruel division. It is about ending the two-tier Europe which has existed for over half a century. Sinn Fein and the Greens, opponents of the Treaty of Rome, champions of economic and cultural insularity, stand against an inclusive, prosperous Europe.
The treaty would benefit the applicant states immeasurably, as Ireland once benefited. Opponents of the Treaty of Rome who have hogged the debate with scare stories have ensured that the discussion, to date, has been rather narrow. We have ignored, for example, the extent to which enlargement would introduce gender and equality legislation to the applicant states.
I recall the EEC's Equal Pay Directive which transformed the workplace for Irish women in the 70s. Similarly, applicant states would have to pass EU legislation in the area of equality. As well as benefiting the applicant states it would aid Irish industry by opening an enlarged single market of 550 million people. It would be a win-win situation.
The nation's Eurosceptics, Sinn Fein, the Greens and the collection of old communists who opposed the Treaty of Rome and the very notion of Europeans replacing war, division and conflict with peace and prosperity, are using the Nice referendum to advance arguments wholly unconnected with that treaty.