If Irish voters are to make an informed decision on the Nice Treaty they will need to have the broadest possible debate on the implications of accepting or rejecting it in the forthcoming referendum.
This week, an intolerant tone entered the debate as No campaigners denounced warnings by the President, Mrs McAleese and leading business figures, of what might follow from a second rejection of the treaty. Rather than such an unacceptable narrowing of the debate, voters would be better served by substantive arguments indicating that Ireland would not be isolated or materially disadvantaged if there is a second No.
Mrs McAleese was criticised by Green and Labour representatives for saying in an interview that the Nice Treaty is pivotal for the timing of EU enlargement. That is simply a realistic statement of fact. A No vote at a time when the other member-states had all ratified the treaty and the accession states had concluded the negotiations, has been accurately described by the Danish prime minister as a "political disaster." It would certainly take time to sort out the issue, during which, those states who oppose rapid enlargement would use the Irish vote as an excuse to delay it. Leaders of the accession states would find it more difficult to win their own referendums on entry as a result. Ireland would have lost the opportunity to make long-term allies among them.
The chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, Mr Seán Dorgan, was also attacked for warning that a second No vote would be "seen and represented as a withdrawal from the European consenssus", with potentially dire effects on foreign investment and employment. People working in those industries and all who depend on them are fully entitled to hear such judgments from such a well-informed source. Those who disagree should produce equally weighty alternatives if they are to be convincing. Is Mr Dorgan wrong to relate full participation in the EU to Ireland's prosperity and welfare? What evidence is there that international opinion would not judge a second No in the way he describes? That should be the bones of the debate.
In the same way, we need to hear more about the effects of a No vote on Ireland's influence and alliance-building within the EU, both of which are crucial for the defence and promotion of national interests. Voters will have to decide whether ministerial warnings about a loss of influence are more convincing than what No campaigners say about the treaty being biased against smaller states. The Minister for Agriculture, Mr Walsh, warned farmers against voting No on precisely such grounds. It falls to the Government especially to demonstrate that such arguments are valid, rather than simply asserting them. But no one should underestimate how serious are the issues at stake for Ireland's future prosperity.