OPINION:The contrast between what Europe was and what it has become is so great that I feel I must listen carefully when those who represent us in the EU today express concern, writes Noel Dorr
THERE ARE two reasons why I am disposed to vote Yes to the Lisbon Treaty. One is the memory of earlier negotiations on the Amsterdam and Nice treaties in which I represented Ireland on the drafting group of officials which prepared the texts. I was not involved in the Lisbon Treaty, but a careful reading of the text inclines me to see it as quite a good deal: it settles many of the issues which we left unresolved and it does so in a way which protects Ireland's interests. I cannot believe that if we reject it a better deal will be on offer from the 26 other member states who see it as fair and equitable.
The second, possibly deeper, reason is that, like many people of a certain age, I remember a very different Europe.
When I was a child Europe was devastated by the bloodiest war in history. For a time a totalitarian state proclaiming itself a thousand-year Reich occupied most of the land mass of the Continent - from Norway down to north Africa, from the Atlantic coast of France over to the gates of Moscow and down through the Crimea and Greece to Crete. Thereafter, and for much of my later adult life, the Continent was split in two. The line went through the heart of Germany. Across it two nuclear-armed alliances confronted each other: one was prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if the massed tanks of the other attacked across the north German plain. That was still the case as recently as 20 years ago.
Today, 27 European states stretching from Connemara to Bulgaria, from Sweden to Portugal and over to Cyprus have come together by their own choice to form a union of states and of peoples which other states want to join. It is a condition of membership that member states be committed to liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.
The text which says so was formulated by Ireland and written into the founding treaty of the Union in 1998.
The contrast between this Europe and the older Europe which I remember is so great, and the benefits to Ireland and other member states so evident, that I feel I must listen carefully when those who represent us in the EU today express concern.
They tell us that while the Union still works, it needs to improve its decision-making procedures to remain fully effective and avoid slow paralysis in the future.
I can understand why. It is largely a matter of size: six member states in the 1950s; 15 in the 1990s when I was involved; now 27; eventually perhaps 30 or more. No body that large can work well and handle new issues of global importance such as energy, environment and co-operation on cross-border crime without adapting its procedures. The problem has been to find a way of doing this which will also meet the concerns, protect the interests, and gain the support of all 27 member states.
The new treaty seems to achieve this. I know that those who oppose it fear that we are being misled; they say our interests will be affected; and they argue that the EU works well as it is.
From experience, I am more inclined to believe those Irish Ministers and civil servants who took a central role in negotiating the treaty and who must continue to speak for us week by week in the EU institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
They say that the changes which the treaty makes are necessary and they assure us that Ireland's interests are protected.
The case they make seems reasonable and the governments of 26 other member states representing a wide spectrum of interests and diverse political beliefs seem to agree.
It would, to say the least, be arrogant of me to suggest that they do not speak for their own electorates, or that they have not taken the concerns of their peoples into account.
In Ireland we have had argument and a war of posters for weeks. It will continue for another few days. What can I add? Perhaps a brief reflection on two points which still cause some well-meaning people to hesitate: why is the treaty complex? And what will happen if we vote No?
Earlier I referred to the EU as "a union of states and of peoples". This is not mere rhetoric. It is an accurate description of a unique political/economic structure which we have created in Europe. It is much more than just another intergovernmental organisation.
But it is not - and it has no wish to become - a super-state or a federation. It has been created by a series of treaties which Ireland has helped to draft and shape over the past 35 years.
Of course these treaties are complex. They must be so because they create a framework for a Continent. It might be easier to write a constitution for a state or a federation. It could at least be shorter. But that is not what the states of Europe want to create. Each of them, like Ireland, insists on maintaining its sovereign independence. But they also understand how much they have to gain in a turbulent world by pooling that sovereignty in carefully specified areas and exercising it jointly through common institutions under rules which protect the interests of all member states, large and small.
The legal texts, including the new treaty, spell all this out in a way which meets the very different concerns of Bulgaria and Ireland, Latvia and Portugal. They must inevitably be detailed - we would be right to distrust them if they were not.
The issue is not whether they are complex and detailed, but whether they meet our interests. I suggest strongly that they do.
So what will happen if we vote No? Of course the sky will not fall and the sun will still rise. But the Lisbon Treaty will not come into effect. That, I think, will be a loss.
The Nice Treaty will continue to apply and the EU will be left to operate under its provisions.
There will be political consequences too. For one thing, we can expect that Ireland will lose much of the goodwill which we have always counted on to build alliances with countries which share our interests: the voting weight of 2 per cent of the total which we have in the council as things stand will not get us very far on its own.
There will also be more general disarray as 26 other member states contemplate the wreckage of seven years of negotiations. They will turn to the Irish Government to ask why?
Just why did Ireland say no to what every other government from Cyprus to Sweden saw as a fair deal? I cannot easily imagine how our Government will respond.
And finally, the point with which I began: will they reopen negotiations and give Ireland get a better deal, as those who oppose the treaty seem to think? I could give a robust response. But I will limit myself to saying that it seems most unlikely.
Noel Dorr was secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs (1987-95); Irish ambassador in London (1983-87); and Irish permanent representative to the UN in New York (1980-83). He is a governor of the Irish Times Trust