Nice vote was a fundamental statement by the Irish people

In the past 20 years we have matured into confident Europeans. We have relied on Europe and it could rely on us. The deal we struck with Europe paid off big time and we were progressively moving to a phase in which it was our turn to make the contribution and we were prepared to do so willingly.

Despite misgivings, we adopted Maastricht and then the Treaty of Amsterdam. But Nice was a different matter from the beginning. It was a treaty made in the context of an emerging political union, ambitious to become a western/central European power. The decision of the Helsinki summit in 1999 to establish a Rapid Reaction Military Force with 60,000 soldiers constantly available to it passed most of us unnoticed at the time. But when it came to Nice, the Rapid Reaction Force became a symbol of what many thought to be our loss of neutrality. In addition, Nice involved significant changes in the relationships between the institutions of the Union and between the Union and member-states.

Last week's result was largely influenced by the people's concern about the nature of the evolving relationship between Ireland and the Union. Without going over the debate again, I believe the result was dictated by the people's concerns at our ongoing loss of sovereignty to the institutions of the Union which, it was planned, should be given much more centralised powers. My concerns related to the 30 or more significant areas of policy and decision-making which were to become the subject of Qualified Majority Voting.

Article 5 of our Constitution says Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic State. In the referendum we were asked to dilute this proclamation by surrendering power or sovereignty over certain areas to the institutions of the Union and in particular to the Council of Ministers. The people refused to do so. This is a fundamental statement by the people. There has been much discussion through the week about what it means, but it is clear that the people have rejected a proposal that the sovereignty of this State should be diminished further at this time.

To be a proponent of national sovereignty has become a somewhat suspect position. This is largely because the pursuit of sovereignty was sullied by great violence in the past 25 years. Further, as we were willing to surrender sovereignty through accession to the EEC and the later treaties for our benefit and that of Europe, it was assumed that the significance of sovereignty had faded for us.

But the people have now made a defence of Irish sovereignty and it is imperative that this is respected; otherwise the basis of our democracy and rule of law, which have been so hard won, so hard to protect, will be undermined. It would be appalling if this occurred unwittingly at the hands of a government seeking to ameliorate the effects of the rejection for what they may perceive as the best national interest.

The overwhelming message to the electorate for the past week has been: "You will have to put this right and we will prepare an opportunity for you to do so in a further referendum". The electorate has perceived this as a rejection by our European partners and by our Government of the result of the referendum. This has alienated voters and will harden a negative attitude towards Nice.

The Government's proposal for a forum on the future of Europe has come into existence only because of the rejection of Nice. That forum will be a failure unless it addresses the electorate's concerns that led to the No vote and objectively reviews the Nice Treaty in the context of the intergovernmental convention on a constitution for the Union, due to conclude in 2004.

One of the principal failures of Nice is that it was premature; it pre-empted the outcome of the proposed constitutional convention by seeking to have the nation states surrender significant sovereignty to the Union in advance of a constitutional settlement.

Some of the alarm generated this week about the damage done to Ireland in the Union has been hysterical. What is worse is that much of it has been created by our own representatives who, rather than seeking to explain why the people might have rejected Nice, declare that the people were mistaken or confused. One gets the impression that our leaders, diplomats and other insiders in the Union's institutions are apologising for the result.

The Government should reject this approach. It should pursue a diplomatic and information offensive in the Union and directed to applicant states, based on the premise that an enlarged superstate-like union is not achievable if the citizens' democratic rights are diminished to a point where the people become cynical and alienated.

In other words, the Government must address to the Union and to applicant states how the "democratic deficit" in the institutions of the Union should be redressed. It would be surprising if eastern European applicant states, which were client states of the Soviet Union, would not well understand this. Why should applicant states opt into a new regime that would leave them without the capacity to veto issues of fundamental importance, such as the composition of the Commission?

The democratic deficit in the Union can be best addressed in the context of a federation or union of nation states and this should be a central plank in Ireland's approach to the negotiation on a new constitution for the European Union.

Turning to our domestic arrangements, it is clear that since this debate on Nice there is an increasing acceptance that we have been neglectful in our parliamentary and institutional procedures for the monitoring and mandating of EU decisions. There is talk of making the European Affairs Committee more focused and to give it greater powers. It is essential to make the scrutiny and mandating of EU decisions a central concern of our elected representatives. The Seanad should be given this role and its 43 elected members should be elected directly by the people.

Senator Maurice Manning seemed earlier this week to accept that the Seanad should have such a role. It is essential to democratic accountability that the people should be able to select those charged with the scrutiny and mandating of European decisions.

The past week has been a watershed in the politics of the island. In this State the issue of our place in Europe is now centre stage. Our leaders will be judged by how they lead us on this issue and a significant political fallout is inevitable, particularly in the next general election. For instance, if a further referendum is envisaged after the election, it is clear that this will be an election issue. Candidates will be asked their views on the result of last week and whether they will insist that a further referendum be put to the people. The implication is that the issue belongs wholly to the people - neither the European Union nor our own leaders can change this now.

John Rogers is a Senior Counsel and a former attorney general and adviser to the former Labour Party leader, Dick Spring