The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Mr Tom Parlon, brought some passion and plain-talking to the debate on the Nice treaty when he addressed the MacGill Summer School in Donegal yesterday.
In Mr Parlon's previous life as leader of the Irish Farmers' Association he had to understand what the European Union is about, how it works politically, what it can offer its members but also what it expects of them. His is a voice of practical experience and fundamental honesty.
Europe is very largely what we make of it ourselves, he told the summer school. A positive attitude, positive choices and actions can yield positive results. Suspicion and hostility towards the international economy, towards foreign investment, will leave us diminished. Those opposed to Nice, said Mr Parlon, claim there will be "dire consequences" if Ireland votes "Yes" to the treaty and that there will be no negative consequences to voting "No." These people are arguing that Ireland can vote "No" at no cost, he said.
He did not hesitate to identify the nay-sayers. They include the Green Party, Sinn Féin, the Socialist Party, the National Platform and Dr Anthony Coughlan of Trinity College Dublin. He cited their opposition to earlier phases of Europe's journey towards unity. None of their "wild rhetoric" has been borne out, he said. In the "tone and mentality" of the anti-Nice campaign, "I see no confidence, no willingness to work positively in Europe and the wider world, no optimism about Ireland's future."
Purists may be disquieted by the Minister's departure from the rather gentlemanly rules which have heretofore guided much of the debate on Nice. Perhaps Mr Parlon may be accused of partially making an argument ad hominem. But the debate on Nice 1 was not conducted wholly on Queensberry Rules. Utterly dishonest slogans were coined and circulated, threatening the electorate with loss of power, money and influence in the event of the treaty being adopted. The campaign to secure a "Yes" vote this time around is going to have to be a good deal more robust, more direct and more combative.
Mr Parlon's address to the MacGill School perhaps grabbed more attention for his direct assault on those opposed to Nice. It would be regrettable, however, if those remarks wholly overshadowed his tour d'horizon of the economic difficulties currently facing the State and his identification of five "central challenges", as he put it, if we are to continue to make progress. The five points he listed are: maintaining sound national finance; building competitiveness; balancing regional development; building social inclusion; creating a clean environment, safe food and sustainable development.
Each of these, he argued, is essential to continuing economic success. And each of these can be best advanced within the policy framework and within the supportive structures of a united Europe. Statements of the obvious, perhaps. But the obvious is going to have to be spelled out repeatedly in order to avoid the disaster of a second "No" vote in October.