Many citizens feel they do not quite understand how the European Union works. This uncertainty has been skilfully exploited to suggest that the complexity of the EU is deliberately constructed to camouflage its hidden agenda.
The reverse is the case. The complexity of the EU is reassuring. It is the agenda of those opposing the treaty which is hidden.
There is no doubt that the EU is an obscure structure. Policies and decisions emerge from a complex process involving the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Their implementation and monitoring involve numerous other institutions, including the European Court, European agencies and national bodies.
There is no doubt that the EU is a funny sort of democracy. The directly elected representatives in the Parliament have an important, but limited, role in decision-making. The fundamental documents of the EU, the treaties, do not have the clarity and accessibility of the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
This complexity and obscurity make many citizens of the EU feel uneasy. Quite correctly, they want a democratic system with clear lines of representation, authorisation and accountability. The institutions of the EU, the member-states and those who analyse European integration, such as myself, have clearly failed in that respect.
But the complexity and obscurity of the EU are not the same thing as "rule by foreigners" or "permanent German-French dominance in a highly centralised quasi-federal EU", or an "unwieldy empire", as has been claimed during the debate on Nice. Without defending the failure noted above, let me suggest that the opposite is the case.
The EU is complex and obscure largely because it accords every member-state such painstaking participation in formulation of policy, decision-making and implementation. Policies emerge from a complex network of committees and working groups, in all of which the Government is represented.
The EU's odd model of democracy has a similar explanation. It would be easy to make Europe a "normal" democracy by letting the Parliament elect a government and adopt policies and laws by majority vote. But the large populations of Germany, France and the UK would dominate.
Instead, the EU is designed to avoid majority voting by handing policy initiative to a Commission independent of all member-states; according a central role to the elected governments of the member-states; and deliberately balancing voting weights in favour of small countries. Even where qualified majority voting applies, most decisions are made by agreement after careful deliberation and negotiation.
The result is different from conventional forms of democracy. It has its strengths and weaknesses, but it is not undemocratic or anti-democratic in the sense in which those words are normally used. Making the governance of international life more fully democratic is a genuinely difficult task, one of the great challenges of the 21st century. The EU is unquestionably the world leader in this project.
The complexity and obscurity of the EU and its treaties have allowed strong claims to be made about the Nice Treaty. It is suggested that the institutional changes in the treaty concerning the size of the Commission, voting weights in the Council and provision for "enhanced co-operation" constitute a conspiracy to shift power to the large member-states, create a "two-tier" union and turn the EU into a superpower.
It is simply untrue to say the proposed arrangements for appointment of Commissioners discriminate against Ireland and other small countries. Larger member-states are losing a Commissioner, and all member-states will be on an equal footing.
It is untrue to say that the reweighting of votes in the Council gives control of the EU to the larger member-states. Ireland's voting weight is still 21.5 times what its population would justify. It is likewise untrue to say that the provisions on enhanced co-operation are designed to create a "two-tier" Europe. In any case, to date Ireland has more often chosen to opt in rather than opt out of EU projects, such as monetary integration and social policy.
But, you might ask, if these changes are not sinister, why would the opponents of the Nice Treaty say they are? Why would Anthony Coughlan, the leading figure in the No campaign, suggest that "as responsible Europeans we should vote No to Nice in order to hold the EU together"? (I.T. May 30th)
There is a simple explanation. Far from wanting "to hold the EU together", he actually wants to destroy it. Look what Mr Coughlan has written about the EU in recent months:
"The EU is fundamentally undemocratic"; "a democratic EU is, in principle, impossible"; member-states are "formally under the joint hegemony of Germany and France"; the EU is "run in the interest of giant trans-national corporations and supra-national technocrats"; "Enlargement of the EU is, in fact, a most reactionary development, for the east Europeans and for us. It deprives the citizens of the east European applicant states of their hard-won national democracy and independence." (National Platform Publication of 14/11/2000)
If you share these beliefs and values, then you should vote No to Nice.
If you do not see Europe in this way, if you believe that our participation in Europe has been important in our overcoming 150 years of emigration and economic stagnation, strengthening our culture, increasing economic opportunity and gender equality, then you should vote Yes.
If you think these achievements stem mainly from our own creative efforts and the European context which we helped to create, rather than from the structural funds and Irish use of a veto on EU initiatives, then you should vote Yes.
If you think our best days are ahead of us, and we are capable of both prospering and asserting our values in an enlarged Europe, then you should vote Yes. If you believe our remarkable catch-up on our richer and larger European neighbours can make Ireland a model to many of the countries of central and eastern Europe, and can enhance our influence and standing in an EU made up mainly of small states, then you should vote Yes.
Rory O'Donnell is Jean Monnet Professor of European Business at University College Dublin