It will be interesting to see whether the advent of the euro helps or hinders the reversal of last year's referendum verdict, writes Garret FitzGerald.
Will familiarity with this European currency encourage people to take advantage of a second opportunity to vote for enlargement of the EU by joining with our partners in ratifying the Nice Treaty - as Mary Holland suggested on this page several days ago - or will nostalgia for the pound have an opposite effect?
Who can say? Looking back to last year's June referendum, it is not surprising that 18 per cent of the electorate should have chosen to vote against this treaty. After all, the percentage voting against the Maastricht Treaty 11 years earlier was almost 18 per cent, and in 1998, 21 per cent voted against the Amsterdam Treaty. What was new on this occasion was that only 16 per cent of the electorate voted for the treaty - barely half of the share of the electorate who had supported the Amsterdam Treaty three years earlier.
The result of last June's vote should not have been a surprise to anyone who remembered the low level of the turn-out for the double referendum on the Belfast Agreement and the Amsterdam Treaty four years ago. On that occasion, despite the huge importance to us all of the agreement that had been reached on Good Friday of that year, only 56 per cent of the electorate bothered to go out to vote.
After that and in the knowledge that referendums in 1979 and 1996 brought only 27-29 per cent of the electorate out, that I pointed out here before the June vote that a further referendum three years later involving another European treaty unaccompanied this time by any other major issue, might involve a very low poll - with the consequent danger of ratification being defeated. There was a clear possibility that the more strongly-motivated minority opposed to the treaty, together with those who through lack of information or lack of understanding felt safer in voting against it, would together outnumber the number actually motivated to go out and vote for it. In the run-up to the referendum, I was amazed that experienced politicians in government either failed to understand this danger, or if they understood it proved too inert to do anything about it. In view of the dangers of Irish isolation in Europe if a majority were to reject the enlargement of the EU in this way, there can be no excuse for that political failure. A poll subsequently carried out for the European Commission Representation Office in Dublin by IMS helps us to understand why people voted they way they did - or in most cases failed to vote at all. In response to an open-ended question, only one-third of those who voted against ratification were able to give any concrete reason for opposing the treaty.
Some 16 per cent of the No voters mentioned concerns about loss of sovereignty or a federalist Europe; neutrality was mentioned by 12 per cent; fear of more refugees by 3 per cent; and concerns about abortion by 2 per cent.
In the responses to this question there was no direct mention of opposition to enlargement; nevertheless, this may have been a hidden factor to which people were reluctant to admit. When asked an equally open question about possible disadvantages of enlargement, no less than 23 per cent of the entire sample saw enlargement as a financial drain, 6 per cent thought the EU was too big already, and a further 7 per cent mentioned refugees, drugs or xenophobia.
What is most striking, however, is the fact that an even larger proportion of those voting against - 38 per cent - mentioned instead lack of information or understanding, or uncertainty about the consequences, or plain confusion as reasons for the way they voted.It should be said the proportion of those who voted for the treaty and were able to give a concrete reason for having done so was equally small. A concern to broaden the scope of Europe was mentioned by 16 per cent, and a desire to give others a chance was mentioned by a further 6 per cent - which seems to suggest that 22 per cent were positively motivated in relation to enlargement. A further 7 per cent merely said that we were already a member of the EU, and each of three specific matters - agriculture, human rights and peace/military issues - was mentioned by a further 1 per cent.
As for those prepared to admit that they did not vote, no less than 23 per cent claimed to have been away, or else not to have been registered to vote.
This figure is so improbably high that at least some interviewees seem to have used excuses of this kind to cover up their lack of interest. A further 10 per cent simply said they were not interested in politics. But 39 per cent of those who did not vote said their failure to do so was due to lack of information or understanding.
When this figure is added to the number who said they voted against for similar reasons, it appears that almost one million people either opposed the treaty or failed to vote because of lack of information or understanding or confusion. If ever there was a reason for giving people a second opportunity to vote on a matter after a full debate of the issues to vote again, this is surely it.
There would, of course, be nothing new about such a procedure, as some opponents of a second referendum on the treaty seem to be suggesting. Thus de Valera put the abolition of PR to the people for a second time, albeit without success. Later, to the evident satisfaction of some at least of those who now oppose a second Nice referendum, divorce was also put to the people a second time, as a result of which the earlier decision against its introduction was reversed. As for the claim that such a procedure would be undemocratic, this stands the very idea of democracy on its head.
When one-third of the electorate feel they were inadequately informed on the first occasion, nothing could be more democratic than to offer them a further opportunity to consider again an issue upon which, after all, the whole future of Ireland in Europe depends
It is those opposing a further referendum on the Nice Treaty who are palpably anti-democratic, for they are seeking to prevent the Irish people from participating more fully in a decision about which one-third of them feel they were insufficiently informed when it was initially put to them.
Those opposed to a further referendum are simply seeking to ensure the imposition of their view upon the electorate as a whole. For, to my mind, their fear of a second referendum on the issue necessarily implies a belief that their view is in fact a minority one. Otherwise they should logically welcome the opportunity for a confirmation of popular support for their stance.
Either a second referendum in which a greater number of better-informed voters may participate confirms the decision of last June - in which case those seeking to block a second vote will have been vindicated; or else this larger number of voters will decide to ratify the Nice Treaty, in which case a more democratic outcome will have been secured as a result of offering the people a second chance to decide the issue. In present circumstance it seems to me impossible for a democrat in good faith to oppose a second referendum.
gfitzgerald@irish-times.ie