All reports obtained from RM-Distribution
European Union's one and only referendum on the Treaty of Nice
Yes and No votes increased - Referendum passes by clear margin
Sunday, 20 October, 2002
Tuesday-Wednesday, 8-9 October, 2002
Thursday-Saturday, 26-28 September, 2002
Wednesday, 4 September, 2002
Wednesday-Friday, 26-28 June, 2002
Referendum passes by clear margin
Although counting is continuing at centres across the 26 Counties, it is now clear that the European Union's Treaty of Nice has been approved by the Irish electorate at the second attempt.
The referendum on European Union expansion, militarisation and integration is set to be carried by more than a 3-2 margin of victory. A relatively high turnout of voter 50% is expected when counting is concluded this evening, a significant increase from last year's referendum, when the Treaty was rejected by 54% to 46%.
The Irish Prime Minister, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern hailed the historic step.
"Yesterday's positive decision by the Irish people is an emphatic 'Yes' to enlargement and a warm Irish welcome to our fellow Europeans from central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean islands," he said.
"We look forward to working with them from 2004 as new friends and partners in the European Union".
The Irish Premier issued his welcome at his Fianna Fail Party's annual Wolf Tone Commemoration at Bodenstown, County Kildare.
Mr Ahern claimed the Irish republic was the perfect example of the benefits EU membership can bring.
He added: "We have demonstrated that, with freedom and as part of a peaceful European order based on equal partnership and the rule of law, smaller and less-developed countries can flourish".
Parties opposed to the treaty have conceded defeat. Today, John Gormley of the Green Party insisted that the establishment parties which backed the concept had intimidated the electorate.
He said: "I think it is very clear now the Yes side have a resounding victory. I had predicted a 60-40 win for them on trends I witnessed in the past week, and it is unfortunately going to be the case.
"There are a number of factors for this. There was, I think, a huge guilt trip, a certain intimidation - and a lot of money as well."
The final declaration of the overall outcome was due to be made in the national result centre, established in Dublin Castle, later.
Turnout in most constituencies was reported to be one third higher than in the last referendum. The increased turnout on the first ever Saturday polling day appears to have added thousands of votes for the 'Yes' camp.
Despite this, the 'No' vote actually increased in some constituencies across Ireland. In Kerry North, the anti-Nice vote increased by a thousand votes from the previous referendum last year.
In Dublin, there was also an increase in the votes polled by the 'No' side in some areas, particularly in working class areas and areas where Sinn Fein has a strong presence.
Tuesday-Wednesday, 8-9 October, 2002
Analysis: NO to Nice - Towards a Europe of Equals
By Gerry Adams, MP
On 19 October, Irish people in the 26 Counties will go to the polls for a second time to vote on the Nice Treaty. This is a vital vote as it is an opportunity to have a real say in the future development of the European Union. In calling for a NO vote, Sinn Fein is seeking a more inclusive and democratic EU, one where all states - current members AND accession states - are treated equally. That is, we are seeking a Europe of Equals reflecting our vision of an Ireland of Equals.
More and more Irish people now believe that successive governments have ceded too much control to unaccountable EU institutions. They believe that the gradual erosion of our sovereignty and our neutrality have gone too far.
They want this to change. It is well recognised that the EU already has a huge democratic deficit, but Nice did absolutely nothing to redress this.
On the contrary, Nice would move decision making even further away from the individual citizen, from the local communities we live in, and from the governments we democratically elect. These are issues that not only affect Ireland and current EU members, they also impact on the applicant states.
Democracy is the key to Nice 2
For Sinn Fein, the key issue in this referendum campaign is Democracy. It is about the decision of the government to deliberately defy the decision of the electorate and rerun the same referendum, something described by former Attorney General John Rogers as 'constitutionally suspect' and 'undemocratic'. The behaviour of the Irish government in this situation corroborates our fundamental objection to the Treaty of Nice itself, that it brings to an end the EU as a partnership of equal sovereign states.
The very holding of this referendum, a rerun of the last one, is proof of how smaller states will be bullied and cajoled and our democratic vote ignored by the bigger states - if we let them.
Nice creates a two-tier EU
The constitutional amendment the government is asking us to adopt refers specifically to those articles of the Treaty that provide for what is called 'enhanced cooperation'. This will allow up to eight member states to use the EU institutions to advance their common interests, leaving the rest outside the loop. Taken together with the extension of Qualified Majority voting to 30 new areas and the loss of the permanent Irish presence on the EU Commission, this represents a major blow to both Irish sovereignty and equitable Irish participation in the EU. The YES campaign is running a scare campaign which ignores the complexity of the Treaty. Obviously, the YES side does not want to deal with the detail of the Treaty because the devil is in the detail.
This may well be the last referendum in which the people of the 26 Counties can really influence the shape of the EU of which we are members. Because if Nice is passed then so-called 'enhanced co-operation' will allow eight or more states to proceed ahead of the rest regardless of the will of the people in any one state. Under Nice the two-tier EU will be a reality.
Neutrality
Neutrality is the other central issue in this referendum. The Nice Treaty continues the militarisation of the EU, which Sinn Fein opposes. Nice establishes a new Political and Security Committee to deal with EU Common Foreign and Security Policy. The EU Rapid Reaction Force will come under the auspices of this new Committee.
The new Committee will thus oversee a Rapid Reaction Force that is authorised to operate outside the borders of the EU. This gives the force an offensive capacity, something the Irish government should never have agreed to.
The Seville Declarations are political statements not protocols, and so do not alter one word of the Treaty. The proposed new wording in the constitutional amendment is too narrowly focused and is not a real neutrality amendment. It only addresses 'common defence' as set out in Nice.
It will not prevent, for example, the government allowing US warplanes to use Shannon airport as a base, without consultation in the Dail, as they continue to do, nor involvement in the Rapid Reaction Force. Sinn Fein opposes these changes under Nice because they undermine Irish neutrality, and because we are opposed to the development of the EU as a militarised superpower. Instead, we want to see neutrality enshrined in the Irish Constitution, a withdrawal from the EU Rapid Reaction Force and the promotion of an Independent foreign policy.
Privatisation
Nice also contains a covert privatisation agenda in the form of Article 133.
If passed, this would remove transparency from trade negotiations (GATS and TRIPS), remove the European Parliament from any consultation on these trade negotiations and seriously undermine our control over key public services. The EU's chief negotiator for GATS, Robert Madelin, has identified the health and education sectors as 'ripe for liberalisation'.
Those trade unionists and Labour members who claim to oppose privatisation and yet support Nice should seriously rethink their position on the issue.
Nice is about how the EU should be governed
Most of the arguments from the Yes campaign are based on the lie that a rejection of Nice will end our involvement in the European Union. But this is not a referendum about our continued membership. This is not about whether we should leave the EU. It is about how the EU should be governed and our participation in that.
Equally bogus are the dire warnings of economic catastrophe if we vote NO.
They have produced no evidence whatsoever to show that a NO vote will damage the economy. There is no consensus among economists and other experts that YES will benefit our economy and NO will damage it. In fact, the EU has not insulated us from the downturn and neither will Nice. It has not protected us from budget cuts and neither will Nice.
We all know that, if there is a NO vote, the Taoiseach will be on RTE television right away to reassure Ireland and the world that this has no economic implications, that the economy is still healthy, and that we are open for business and investment. And he will be right.
The YES side are threatening the electorate that this state will be isolated in the EU if we vote NO and we will penalised by the other member states. I don't believe this will happen, but I would ask the Yes side to follow the logic of their argument. If they really believe this is the case then they are telling the Irish people we have no real choice and we will be punished for exercising our democratic rights. What does that say about democracy and accountability in the EU and in Ireland?
People are angry about this Treaty. They are angry at the fundamentally undemocratic nature of a second referendum. They are concerned about the threats to neutrality and sovereignty, and are worried about our diminishing voice in Europe. I believe that on October 19th the people should come out and reject Nice for a second time.
Let's get a Treaty we can live with. Not one dictated by others.
Thursday-Saturday, 26-28 September, 2002
Analysis: Voters don't understand Nice
By Robbie MacGabhann
Finally we have a date for Nice II, 19 October. We have Fianna Fail talking tough and surpassing themselves with the range of dire scenarios that await a No vote. We still don't have any debate on the substance of the treaty and now a new survey has shown an electorate where the vast majority of voters are still in the dark about what the treaty actually deals with.
ONLY 16% KNOW NICE
With less than a month to polling day a survey commissioned by the Referendum Commission and published last week showed that 84% of 26-County voters don't feel they adequately understand the subject matter of the Nice Treaty. Despite the fact that more than a year has passed since the first referendum in June 2001, there is still a massive lack of understanding among voters about the actual details of the Treaty.
40% of voters were unable to explain even one treaty related issue. There was little comfort for the government, who have been promoting Nice for the last two years, in the fact that the only positive aspect of the poll was that 78% of the voters actually knew the treaty referendum was imminent.
A Farmers Journal telephone poll of farmers found support for the Yes groups dropping from 47% to 45% while the No vote support rose from 19% to 27%
AVOID THE DETAIL
Could the problem with voter understanding be due to the Fianna Fail and Progressive Democrat led campaign, which has deliberately avoided actually discussing any of the detail of the treaty? Apart from name calling the No campaign, who this week were guilty of "muddled thinking" and being "hostile to international business and investment", Fianna Fail have only promoted the Treaty on two cases. They are that it is a must for further enlargement of the union and that the economic consequences of a No vote will be damaging to the Irish economy.
Even last week, Bertie Ahern twice deliberately avoided dealing with the detail of the Treaty. He said on the Nice referendum was about "minor institutional arrangements" necessary to expand the EU. He also said "you can get tied up in the complexities".
Fianna Fail have promised to knock on every door, in every county but what are they actually going to tell voters when they get there. It seems to be a classic case of 'don't read the small print'.
FF HYPE
Fianna Fail are going to "campaign hard" according to one party source who told a Sunday newspaper that, "our campaign team will bring the whole range of tactics to bear. We will have a press team, a rebuttal unit, a pre-buttal unit and all the rest that goes with a full-blooded campaign". All these resources and still not one spokesperson willing to explain why it is a good idea to lose our commissioner, give up the veto in 30 new areas, and create more unelected and unaccountable committees.
UNTRUSTABLE POLITICIANS
Gordan Linney, Church of Ireland archdeacon of Dublin made an interesting intervention in the Nice treaty debate this week. Linney told the congregation at Dublin's Christ Church cathedral that the Nice Treaty vote would be affected by the fact that "people no longer believe what politicians tell them". Linney also said, that
"The damage to the credibility of the political establishment is real as the cynicism of people at large deepens".
BIZARRE MCDOWELL
Justice minister Michael McDowell made one of the strangest arguments in favour of Nice last week. If we didn't ratify Nice the new small EU states like Cyprus and Malta could veto developments affecting the 26 Counties. McDowell believes that the enhanced cooperation aspects of the Treaty where one group of states could move on to further levels of integration would be beneficial to Ireland.
It seems that McDowell doesn't support the ideals of the original member states, where they all moved together and where all states, regardless of size, were equal.
Nice Treaty Dail (Irish Parliament) Debate
Address by Caoimhghin O Caolain
"Democracy in this State has been undermined by the conduct of the Government and the EU will be made even less democratic if the Treaty of Nice is ratified," Sinn Fein TD Caoimhghin O Caolain said in the Dublin parliament today (Wednesday) in the debate on the forthcoming referendum on the European Union's Treaty of Nice.
The following is the full prepared text of his address.
This Government has been in office for just over three months and already it has earned a well-deserved reputation as a Government of Broken Promises and Broken Mandates. They have deceived the people in the General Election with promises they knew they would not keep. They have spurned the decision of the people in the Nice Referendum Mark 1 and now they are presenting us with Nice Referendum Mark 2.
This government has as little regard for the referendum mandate of the people on 7 June 2001 as they have for their election mandate on 17 May 2002.
Democracy is the key and critical issue in this debate. The very publication of this Bill and the holding of the referendum is a denial of democracy. Democracy in this State has been undermined by the conduct of the Government and the EU will be made even less democratic if the Treaty of Nice is ratified.
There is no precedent in the history of this State for what the Government has done with regard to the Treaty of Nice. For the first time a proposal to amend the Constitution to facilitate an EU Treaty was rejected by the electorate on 7 June 2001. And for the first time a government chose not only not to implement the decision of the electorate in a referendum but to openly defy it.
The polls were hardly closed in June 2001 when the Taoiseach flew to the EU Summit in Gothenburg and told the other EU Heads of Government that they could proceed with ratification of the Treaty. The Irish electorate had mandated the Government to seek a renegotiation of Nice but the people's mandate was spurned. Instead the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs belittled the people of this State and themselves by promising the other EU states to put the Treaty to a second referendum and to 'get it right' on their second attempt.
Thus only a week after our referendum, and thanks to the Government's cap-in-hand attitude, the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder was saying: "The Irish people will have to decide in a new referendum."
The Government threw away the political leverage and the potential bargaining power given to them by the vote of the people. That would have been critical in renegotiating a better Treaty which addressed the concerns that led people to vote against Nice. By now, over a year later, such a new or amended Treaty might have been in place had the Government acted according to their mandate from the people.
Those of us opposed to Nice have been accused of damaging respect for Ireland internationally. But only those with self-respect earn the respect of others. The government displayed to all of Europe a lack of respect for its own people and surely that can only have diminished the international reputation of the Irish government and of this State.
I repeat a question I have asked many times but which has yet to be answered by any member of this Government or by any other prominent 'Yes' campaigner. If Germany, or France or Britain had voted down this Treaty in a referendum would their governments have acted as ours has done? Would there be any question of the Treaty of Nice proceeding through ratification by the other states while the government in the rejecting country went back to their people to try again? The answer to these questions is of course a resounding 'No' and the government and the rest of the 'Yes' side in this debate know it only too well.
They are unwilling to admit it because it goes to the core of why the Treaty of Nice should be rejected again. This referendum is about the political elite in this State allowing the big states to call the shots in the EU. Nice increases the power of the larger states, acting both individually and collectively in so-called 'enhanced co-operation'. It reduces the democratic power of the people in each state because it reduces the sovereignty of the nation-state. The smaller member states inevitably lose out.
The very holding of this referendum sends out the message that the people of the smaller states do not have the right to say 'No'. Under EU law the approval of each individual member state, regardless of population size, is required to ratify EU treaties. If one state dissents, then the Treaty cannot be ratified. This State dissented in the most definite and democratic manner possible - by vote of the people.
Ni he an Stat an rialtas na an tOireachtas ach an pobal. Deir Airteagal a Se den mBunreacht gur on bpobal a thagas "gach cumhacht riala, idir reachtaiocht is comhallacht is breithiunas, agus is ag an bpobal ata se de cheart rialtoiri an Stait a cheapadh, agus is faoin bpobal faoi dheoidh ata gach ceist i dtaobh beartas an Naisiuin a shocru de reir mar is ga chun leasa an phobail".
The State is not the Government nor the Oireachtas, it is the people. Article Six of the Constitution states that all powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial derive from the people "whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good".
The final appeal on the Treaty of Nice was the referendum held last year. The same Treaty should not be put before the electorate again.
Those on the pro-Nice side have attempted to refute this argument by saying that issues were put to referendum more than once in the past. But it is absurd to compare the repeat of this referendum with previous second or third referenda on such issues as divorce, abortion and proportional representation. In each of those cases years had elapsed since the previous referenda and they were matters of domestic policy which required detailed legislation to accompany constitutional change. There is one other essential difference. Referendum decisions of the people affecting purely domestic law or policy can be reversed or otherwise changed by the people in the future. But if the people ratify an EU Treaty it becomes EU law and they cannot change it or reverse it in the future. It would require all EU states to do so.
In the first Nice referendum the issue was straightforward - to ratify or not to ratify the Treaty. There was a clear course for the government to follow in the event of rejection and that was to inform our EU partners that we would not ratify the Treaty and that therefore it must be revisited and renegotiated.
The government has done otherwise and has thus devalued the referendum process. It is in effect telling the people that it will only implement the result of a referendum if the result concurs with government policy.
The Treaty of Nice is not about enlargement. It is not necessary that Nice be ratified for enlargement to proceed. And the Irish electorate did not vote against enlargement last year. The President of the EU Commission, Romano Prodi, stated in Dublin on 20 June 2001 that "legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement" and that "enlargement is possible without Nice". Giscard d'Estaing, Chair of the EU Constitutional Convention has said: "If the Irish vote No the solution will not be to ignore the vote but to handle the situation. Probably it requires taking what is needed from the Nice treaty to carry through the enlargement."
The Treaty of Nice is about changing the governance of the EU before any new states join. Those who claim that by voting No again we would be placing the applicant states at a great disadvantage seem to forget that the very purpose of Nice was to change the rules before enlargement. If the political elite in the EU and in this State were so concerned for the rights of the new member states why did they not proceed with enlargement and then, when the new states were in, proceed with a debate about the governance of the EU and with negotiations in which the new members could fully participate?
And we might also ask, if the other EU governments are so definite in their belief that all of Europe is waiting on Ireland and longing for Nice to be ratified then why have they not had referenda in their own states? The answer is obvious. They fear that the Irish example will be followed by their own people.
In a democracy the elected representatives of the people make laws and decide policies. If the people think they are doing a bad job they can turf them out at the next election. There is no such democratic process in the European Union because it is not a democracy. Laws are made by the unelected EU Commission and the Council of Ministers from each of the member states. The minimal input we have in terms of the Commission is set to be reduced under Nice as we will not have an Irish Commissioner in place at all times.
Instead of making the EU institutions more accountable to the citizens in each of the member states the Nice Treaty increases the power of these bodies. The power of individual member states, and of smaller member states in particular, is reduced, while more laws and policies can be imposed upon us by the EU without the scrutiny of our own parliament, let alone a vote on them.
Under the Nice Treaty the voting weight of each member state on the Council of Ministers is changed significantly. Small states like the Irish state double their voting weight but larger states like Germany and Britain treble their voting weight. In addition more decisions will be made by the Council of Ministers by Qualified Majority Voting. In other words the Irish government will not be able to block a decision by a majority of EU states and will have to implement that EU decision even if it is against the interests of the Irish people.
These changes will come about whether or not any new state joins the EU.
Crucially, the Nice Treaty creates a two-tier EU. Under Enhanced Co-operation it allows a group of states to move ahead of the remainder of member states, using the institutions to form an inner core or advance guard. This breaks up the EU as a partnership of equal states.
On 21 January this year the Financial Times reported that the British government was considering putting forward proposals to establish an EU body similar to the United Nations Security Council. This body would comprise Britain, France and Germany as the three dominant powers in the EU. On the same day the French and German EU Commissioners were putting forward the idea of a Franco-German confederation with a common army and a common diplomatic corps. These ideas may seem like pie in the sky but they give a clear indication of how the elite groups who run the affairs of the EU are thinking. And in the Nice Treaty under Enhanced Co-operation they have the potential to carry out such projects. It has been stated that neutrality is not as big an issue in this referendum. I believe it is more important than ever. Since Nice 1 we have seen the government further violating our neutrality by allowing US warplanes to use Shannon Airport on their way to fight their war in Afghanistan. We have seen them allow those planes to carry out exercises over our southwest coast. Today we note their presence once again as citizens are arrested at Shannon for protesting against a US Air Force Hercules plane. This is the reality behind the rhetoric about neutrality and the Seville declaration. Seville did not change one syllable in the Treaty of Nice. Denmark exercised its right to opt out of the Rapid Reaction Force, the core of an EU army, and we could and should have done the same thing. A Yes vote will consolidate our position in that Force.
The people ought not to trust a party which promised a referendum on membership of NATO's Partnership for Peace and, when in government, and with the support of the Fine Gael party, brought us into that force without a referendum.
There is an alternative to the direction in which Nice would take the EU. It is neither the break-up of the EU nor a futile attempt to create a giant EU democracy. Peace and democracy in Europe can be served by maximum co-operation between sovereign democracies, with respect for diversity within and between nations.
The alternative to Nice as advocated by Sinn Fein includes:
All EU institutions to be more accountable to national parliaments and to the individual citizen through institutional reform and the elimination of excessive EU bureaucracy.
I want to turn briefly and finally to the issue of the EU and the Border. Since the time of Sean Lemass there have been claims that the European project would make the Border irrelevant. We know that was not and is not the case. There are those who argue that further EU integration will help to bring the two parts of Ireland together. Our view in Sinn Fein is that integration must begin at home. We cannot wait for the very doubtful project of EU integration to create an All-Ireland economy and society. We must do that ourselves.
I believe the Nice Treaty will be rejected again by the electorate in this State and I believe that will be a positive outcome, one that will be welcomed by people all over Europe who want to reclaim the EU for the citizens and to halt the anti-democratic drive to create a superstate. There is nothing to fear from such a result and I hope that this time the government will respect the wishes of the people.
Wednesday-Friday, 26-28 June, 2002
Feature: The case against Nice 2
The Irish government has been bitterly criticised for the wording of a second referendum on the European Union's Treaty of Nice, to be held later this year.
Irish people are broadly pro-Europe, repeatedly backing the Euro currency, the removal of internal borders and the expansion of the Union in opinion polls.
But the government lost the first referendum and may lose another because it continues to ignore the historically understandable suspicions of Irish people to the increasing loss of power to Brussels.
After the first referendum was soundly defeated, those suspicions were seen to have been confirmed by the insulting response of European officials to the referendum's defeat.
Now, the Dublin government's 'get it right this time' approach, after it made only a minimal change to an amendment which was soundly defeated, may ensure that the Treaty of Nice is doomed.
The government has only added into the proposed constitutional amendment ratifying the Nice Treaty the words: "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty .. where that common defence would include the State."
The wording published falls considerably short of demands from opposition parties that neutrality be defined in the Constitution. For Irish people, neutrality represents the nation's hard-won independence, and the failure to preserve this independence is at the heart of the Nice debate.
The final wording was published on Thursday after what was said to have been "days of intense discussions between ministers". But it pointedly fails to address the issues of the European Union's democratic deficit, where people feel they have little say in a two-tier Europe controlled by bureaucrats from the major powers.
Sinn Fein European Affairs spokesperson Aengus O Snodaigh TD said people would be voting on the same Treaty of Nice they rejected last year.
"Neither the wording proposed to be inserted in the Constitution nor the Declarations adopted at [the European Summit at] Seville can alter one syllable in the Treaty of Nice," he said.
O Snodaigh criticised the new additional wording on the establishment of a 'common defence', pointing out that Ireland's membership of the 'Rapid Reaction Force', the core of an EU Army, is already in violation of the proposed amendment.
"The proposed wording does not adequately address the militarisation of the EU which will proceed if Nice is ratified here," he said. "The government has failed to safeguard Irish neutrality in the Constitution, a key demand of Sinn Fein, and one widely supported across the political spectrum.
"Our opposition to Nice is not solely based on the neutrality issue. Under Nice a two-tier EU is created, dominated by the larger states.
"Sinn Fein will call for a 'No' vote. The fundamental issue is democracy because the Government defied the decision of the people in referendum last year and encouraged the other States to ratify, ensuring that the Irish would 'get it right' the second time around. If Germany or France or Britain had rejected Nice it would have been dead in the water. This proves the point that the Nice Treaty establishes a two-tier EU dominated by the larger states."
The case against Nice 2
Speaking at the Patrick MacGill Summer School in Donegal, Sinn Fein European Affairs spokesperson Aengus O Snodaigh said the Government is attempting to bully the electorate into reversing their decision on the Treaty of Nice. He said democracy was the primary issue in the Nice 2 referendum. Deputy O Snodaigh said:
"Many more people are beginning to see that we have ceded too much control of our affairs to EU institutions which are not accountable to the Irish people. Democracy is now the issue. The very holding of this referendum itself is a denial of the democratic decision made by the people last year. The message it sends is that the people of the smaller states do not have the right to say No.
"Does anyone here believe if Nice had been rejected by the German people or the French people that those governments would tell the rest of the EU to go ahead with ratification and they would get their people to change their minds? Of course not. Yet that's what has happened in this State in an EU that is supposedly still a partnership of equals where every State must agree or none agree.
"If the government and its allies succeed in bullying the electorate into voting 'Yes' this time it will be a huge setback for democracy in Ireland, in the EU and for the applicant countries. No to Nice means Yes to democracy."
The following was the full text of Mr O Snodaigh's address.
We don't know yet the date of the next Nice referendum. We do know that an unprecedented campaign for a Yes vote is being mounted not just by the Government but also the whole political establishment.
Day after day spokespersons are being wheeled out to sound dire warnings. We are daily being lectured of the dangers of rejecting the Nice Treaty.
It is interesting that so much effort is being put into warning of the perils of rejection and of the economic calamity it could be, of the sweeping away of years of goodwill built up by the Irish, or how we are hampering enlargement of the EU, or how we will be left behind by our EU partners. Why are we being threatened into voting Yes? Is this how the EU of the 21st century works ? with threats and coercion? Interesting, because so little effort was made, in the months before and after the Nice Treaty was rejected by the electorate, actually to inform voters what the referendum was about in the first place.
Real truthful information about Nice comes a poor third in this referendum for the Yes camp. The most important tactic is the endless dire warnings. Second on their agenda is the misrepresentation of the No campaign particularly the position of parties like Sinn Fein. Then if time allows the government might allow space for actual information on Nice, but only if this means not having to actually debate or discuss the provisions of the Nice Treaty.
Today I want to outline something overlooked and ignored by the political establishment in this country. Yes, I want to explain the Sinn Fein position and why we are calling for a No vote in this referendum. I welcome the chance to spell out the Sinn Fein analysis on the EU as it exists today.
I also want to take a new step in terms of the Nice Debate and show why Sinn Fein is unique in Irish politics today.
Our opposition to Nice is informed by concerns regarding the EU's on issues such as the lack of accountability, the greater encroachment of sovereignty, the emerging two tier EU, the unacceptable development of a superstate, the growing economic power and wealth of some which is creating deprivation, poverty and cruel hardship in other regions.
Our analysis does not stop there. We have a vision of what Europe could be. We see how the republican ideal translates internationally into the need for a Europe of equals, not one of weighted majorities, of nuclear powers, of a super state. We have a different positive vision of a democratic Europe of the peoples.
But first comes the health warning. Democracy in Ireland is under threat. Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney have not implemented the decision of the people and have not respected their democratically expressed will in the first Nice Treaty referendum. The government has not requested the other EU states to halt the process of ratification of the Nice Treaty. On the contrary, the government has openly defied the decision of the people and encouraged the other EU states to proceed with ratification, promising to ensure that we "get it right" the second time around. Therefore this is a referendum about democracy itself. If the government is allowed to steamroll the electorate in this way then what value can any future referendum have?
So why are we opposed to the Nice Treaty?
Sinn Fein is opposed to the Nice Treaty we have consistently opposed the drive towards an EU that is totally integrated politically and economically. We are not opposed to positive alliances between states and welcome mutually beneficial cooperation. We support membership of the EU and we believe that we should continue our positive but critical engagement. This is not a referendum about continued membership of the EU as the 'Yes' camp so often claims.
We are opposed to a United States of Europe built not in the interests of its 370 million citizens but in the interest of international business.
We are opposed to an EU where institutions are unelected and for the most part unaccountable. We are opposed to the gradual erosion of our economic and political sovereignty.
The loss of sovereignty is real. It means that we are losing control of basic things like how much money should be invested in health, education, childcare, telecommunications, roads and rail.
We are losing control of the right to set tax rates, borrow money and pay wage increases. These are all crucial aspects of managing a national economy.
Worse still when the EU does formulate polices on these issues little account is taken of the need to consider the negative impact they will have on small states such as Ireland. For example the falling value of the euro increased inflation in Ireland. The EU was unwilling to act to bolster the euro and instead the Dublin government was pressurised to cut spending.
What will the impact of saying No to Nice be? Saying No to Nice a second time will force the Dublin Government and the EU itself to wake up and reconsider what is a very badly and hastily formulated treaty. It will send a signal to other EU states and regions that they too can lobby for rejection of the Nice Treaty.
In reality the deliberations in the Convention on Europe arising from the Laeken Declaration are a recognition that the architects of the EU have failed. They know they have failed to create an EU that is responsive to the needs and wishes of its hundreds of millions of citizens, as distinct from its ruling elite.
Rejection of Nice will not lead to the Irish economy losing any EU funds or being 'punished' by other states. It will not lead to a mass withdrawal of international investment from the economy. I deplore the assertion made during the week by the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell that a NO vote would lead to a "cascade" of job losses like those at Elan. This is cynical scare-mongering of the worst kind.
A 'No' vote would be a first step in a longer process to change the EU's flawed integration strategy. This offers a chance to emphasise the positive alternatives to the current economic and political union strategy. An opportunity to build a Europe of equals where all states regardless of their wealth, their population or strength of armies have an equal say.
We want a Europe where everybody has a dignified standard of living and proper access to housing, health and education. These are not the objectives of the EU today.
What are the flaws in the Nice Treaty? There are a range of deficiencies in the Nice Treaty.
THE EUROPE OF COMMITTEES
The bureaucracy and institutions of the EU are known throughout Europe for both the amount of power they wield as their unaccountability. Rather than tackle this serious deficiency the Nice Treaty gives us more committees, some with huge powers and more powers to unelected bureaucrats such as the president of the EU Commission who has powers that rival any EU prime minister or head of state.
Indeed in the months since the first Nice referendum we have heard plan after plan seeping out from the EU Commission and the larger states, for a stronger president with more powers, for an EU government, for a two tier commission, for a Council of Ministers with permanent members while the smaller states would rotate places.
Halt the loss of Veto One of the core principles that is being damaged in this Treaty is the principle on which the EU was originally based, the right to say no as well as yes, the right to veto decisions that are against a particular state's interests. The EU is moving away from being a community of equal states regardless of population size, into one where the larger states increasingly call the shots.
No to a two tier Europe If the EU Commission has its way the Nice Treaty will lead to the entry of up to 12 states who have hugely different economies from those of the 15 current members. It is highly likely that through the use of the qualified majority system some of the larger and more prosperous EU states will let in our poorer Eastern European cousins to the EU while forging ahead with their own faster paced closer cooperation, which the new states will not be allowed veto, all under the guise of what the Nice Treaty calls "Enhanced Cooperation".
Enhanced cooperation is yet another example of positive original principles of the EU being undermined. The idea of a Europe where we all moved together at the speed of the slowest member, while offering that member a helping hand was a positive one. It is one that will disappear altogether if the Nice Treaty is ratified.
I want to point out at this stage that we do not regard immigration as an issue in this referendum. We reject absolutely the notion that the challenges which we face in managing an increasingly diverse Ireland should be manipulated or misrepresented in the course of this debate. We are not opposed to enlargement. The Nice Treaty is not primarily about enlargement. It is about institutional changes which favour the larger states. The enlargement issue is being cynically used by proponents of Nice as a distraction from the contents and true intent of the treaty.
The Euro Army The EU's "Rapid Reaction Force" will have 80,000 combat ready troops and 250,000 personnel in total ready to enforce EU foreign and security policies not just within the EU or on its borders but up to 2,500 miles outside of the EU.
The provisions setting up this force were included in the Amsterdam Treaty. The Nice Treaty is attempting to tie up some of the loose ends. However, it gives Ireland an opportunity to say No, and to renegotiate the defence and military aspects of both these treaties to a position where Irish neutrality is enshrined in Irish law and accepted by our EU partners.
The declaration cobbled together by the Dublin Government is at best a stop-gap in the ongoing assimilation of Irish defence forces into an EU army.
There is an alternative to the EU defence policy in its present form. Step one would be to secure for Ireland a proper protocol, inserted in the treaty distancing ourselves from bogus military campaigns and maintaining our unparalleled role in UN peace keeping. This must mean a specific declaration of neutrality included in our constitution.
Step two would be to organise with the more progressive European states, not just those in the EU now for a policy that has as its centrepiece an objective of nuclear disarmament and the dismantling of the EU's war economy.
An EU that enhances and promotes Rights In the aftermath of the Amsterdam Treaty and the realisation of the lack of interest EU citizens actually had in the union it was proposed to radically rewrite the EU treaties with a charter of fundamental rights at its core. The Nice Treaty makes only the smallest of reference to the fundamental rights of EU citizens.
A Fair Referendum We have never had a fair referendum on the EU where the No campaign was allowed the same access to the media with the same resources as those advocating further EU integration. Even now every voter is once again getting a copy of the White Paper on Nice with no plans to give a similar amount of space to the No campaign. We need a fair referendum where the people are really informed of the case for and against Nice.
What kind of Europe do we want? Part of the problem is that within the EU the citizens have never been asked what kind of Europe we want to live in. The Amsterdam and Nice treaties have put this gap into sharp focus. Both treaties had dual aims of making the EU more relevant to its actual citizens and reforming corrupt and cumbersome institutions. The treaties failed to deliver on both counts.
In both cases the EU attempted to, at best, guess the sort of Europe we want to live in, or, at worst, tell us the sort of Europe we ought to live in.
We want a peaceful Europe and an economically stable one, but why can't we have an EU with institutions that are democratic, accountable and offer bottom up participation from the so called regions not one that is top heavy with bureaucrats and unelected decision makers.
Isn't it strange that the EU can make pronouncements on the shape of a banana, the definition of chocolate, the standard for digital mobile phones and so on, but it cannot or will not, develop a coherent regional policy for the EU.
The Nice Treaty is being sold in Ireland as a reform of the EU, a reform needed to enlarge the EU and bring in more states which is promoted as a good thing because who is against a more inclusive EU?
It is not a treaty of reform or inclusion. It is a treaty that allows the larger states move on without the smaller ones, that allows the more economically powerful states set the agenda and pace of future EU integration. This is made possible by the changes in voting weights within the EU council of ministers and the expanding use of qualified majorities within the EU for decision taking.
Under the proposals contained in the Nice Treaty the seven smallest of the current 15 states could oppose a whole range of EU polices only to be overruled by the other eight who between them control more than 70% of the votes on the EU's decision making council.
If small states are in danger of becoming the satellites of the larger ones, what does that say about the regions of the EU and more importantly the peoples trapped without the right to self determination?
What type of Europe do you want to live in? What role should Ireland play in that Europe? These important questions have been overlooked in the current Nice Treaty debate. In fact, they have been ignored through nearly 30 years of EU membership. Instead, the citizens of the 26 Counties have been at various times coerced, lectured and pressurized into accepting a Europe other people think they should have. The citizens of the Six Counties have never even been lobbied about Europe. They have been presented with the EU as a finished product, and with no opportunity even to express an opinion on whether they supported the EU's political and economic integration process at all.
Given the nature and scope of the EU's integration process it is amazing that there is so little debate about the merits or drawbacks of such an ambitious project. There has yet to be a debate about the Europe we really want.
One of the reasons for this lack of real debate is the fact that the current government and its predecessors have never set out what they see as the long-term future of the EU. Do they favour total integration and the creation of Federal EU, a United States of Europe? We do not know. Their policy is ad hoc. They take each new Treaty as it comes. Meanwhile the agenda is being driven by those who want to build a superstate with a strong central government and its own army and police, a "world power" as Romano Prodi described it.
You may disagree with our view of where the EU should be going but we do present a view, unlike most of the supporters of the Nice Treaty. We have also included the whole island of Ireland in our analysis. There has been little or no debate about the implications of Nice, of the Euro and of further EU integration for the political and economic landscape of this island.
Successive generation of Irish people thought it worthwhile to struggle for our independence. They valued democracy and the sovereignty of the people. Part of the reason for the relative success of the EU project in this State has been the widespread view that it helped to remove us from economic dependency on Britain. In other words it was seen as an enhancement of our sovereignty.
But now more and more people are beginning to ask if the gradual erosion of our sovereignty and our neutrality have gone too far. Many more people are beginning to see that we have ceded too much control of our affairs to EU institutions which are not accountable to the Irish people. Democracy is now the issue. The very holding of this referendum itself is a denial of the democratic decision made by the people last year. The message it sends is that the people of the smaller states do not have the right to say No.
Does anyone here believe if Nice had been rejected by the German people or the French people that those governments would tell the rest of the EU to go ahead with ratification and they would get their people to change their minds? Of course not. Yet that's what has happened in this State in an EU that is supposedly still a partnership of equals where every State must agree or none agree.
If the government and its allies succeed in bullying the electorate into voting 'Yes' this time it will be a huge setback for democracy in Ireland, in the EU and for the applicant countries. No to Nice means Yes to democracy.