In the recent Dáil debate, politicians, in both veiled and explicit ways, asked the electorate not to use the Nice referendum as an opportunity to give the Government a "bloody nose".
That is good advice. To vote against Nice because of the failings of Bertie Ahern or Mary Harney would be an immature and self-centred form of protest.
However, it is perfectly legitimate to cast a vote in protest against the way in which the EU is developing. In fact, it is the only form of registering unease which we have. This is in itself part of the problem.
If there were clear mechanisms of expressing disquiet, the need to do so by rejecting an entire treaty would not be necessary.
We have been berated for the fact that our referendum process will affect the whole of the EU. Should we not be instead concentrating on the fact that this democratic option should be available in every member-state, rather than bewailing the fact that Ireland is the only one to have it?
Of course, even this would not be possible were it not for the good offices of the late Raymond Crotty, and we are unlikely to have the option in future if we meekly ratify this treaty.
Anthony Giddens, the distinguished sociologist who has been such an influence on Tony Blair, commented that if the EU applied for membership to itself, it would not be admitted because it does not meet the democratic criteria demanded of an applicant country. This is a serious problem, and one which is even more fundamental than problems concerning the militarisation of the EU, or lack of respect for the culture and mores of individual member-states.
The lack of accountability to the peoples being governed underpins and compounds difficulties which citizens of the member-states have with aspects of the EU enterprise.
Arguably, if there were functioning mechanisms for debate regarding issues like the European rapid reaction force, it might not now exist, or at least not in the form which it is taking.
What we have in the EU is government by governments, not by the people.
The government of a state and the people are assumed to be the same when it comes to policy. In reality, the government can be significantly out of step with the electorate. Hence the surprise at the first defeat of Nice.
When the major parties in a country such as Ireland have a practically identical policy on the EU, there is then no representative voice at decision-making level for the substantial number of citizens who, for very different reasons, oppose aspects of the EU.
The EU has brought both good and bad to Ireland, and on balance far more good. But we have had little say in either the good or bad. The most fundamental problem of the EU as it is currently shaped is that it is effectively a system which allows government by elites, and requires passive populations in order to function.
Certainly we may vote in European elections, but given our numerical strength in the parliament, it is well-nigh a meaningless exercise and is treated as such by the electorate.
The loss of a permanent Commissioner further weakens Ireland's position as the Commission is traditionally known as the friend of the small state.
Unless this fundamental problem of the democratic deficit within the EU is tackled, there will be a growing undercurrent of resentment right across Europe, which, deprived of democratic means of expression, may well be expressed in other more damaging forms. Those who care about the future of the EU are not only entitled but obliged to express their unease.
To characterise all those who oppose the Nice Treaty as Eurosceptics or Europhobes is wrong. It allows only two positions - unthinking loyalty and unquestioning obedience, or outright revolt. Many of those currently advocating a Yes to Nice are thoughtful critics of the EU. It is only a pity that they will not accept that those who advocate a No might also fall into this category.
Much of the debate has clustered around militarisation because it provides a very concrete focus. It allows people to express the fact that they do not trust their own Government or the EU.
The kind of obfuscation which has gone on about Nice gives the electorate no reason to trust. We see the legitimate concerns of the electorate dismissed. We see opponents of militarisation characterised as apologists for massacre in Kosovo, or people who would stand idly by in the case of another massacre in Rwanda.
No attempt is made to distinguish between those who advocate complete pacifism and those who advocate the use of minimum force under the auspices of a reformed and strengthened UN. This kind of mud-slinging does not advance debate.
We are asked to trust that the elites will govern in our interests, yet they do not accord us sufficient respect to merit that trust.
Voting against an entire treaty is quite a drastic step, but luckily those who drafted it did us a favour, because it is not a good treaty.
Concerning the loss of a Commissioner, two committed Europhiles, John Temple Lang and Eamonn Gallagher, have said that this was "perhaps the least considered and most unwise provision, in relation to its importance and its consequences, that has ever been written into an EU treaty".
Are such voices to be ignored? Political leaders who bewail the apathy of the electorate and low turnouts fail to see that preaching the doctrine that "there is no alternative" is a prime cause of apathy.
The debate on Nice is being presented as if we were voting on secession from the EU or whether to remain within it at all. This is nonsense. If this treaty falls, enlargement can go ahead, and after a period of recriminations from the governments of the EU and congratulations from a substantial portion of the peoples, a new and better treaty will be framed.
If that is not the outcome, and Ireland is ostracised and shunned, it will confirm that a No vote was indeed the best option.
Who wants to further the development of a Union of schoolyard bullies who will only allow us to play on their terms?
bobrien@irish-times.ie