`A soft Yes and a hard No". So was the Nice referendum described this week by a Government minister. It is an apt description in the light of the Irish Times/MRBI poll published today, which shows a seven point swing from the Yes to the No side, with the "don't knows" staying constant at a high 27 per cent, compared to the last such poll published two weeks ago.
The Yes side would need to harden up its campaign this weekend if that trend is to be reversed.
This poll clearly reveals some of the major voter preoccupations. They consider themselves to be rather better informed than two weeks ago. There has been little change in the stated intentions to vote, suggesting a possible turnout in the 4050 per cent range. There has been a swing against a commitment to unite fully with the EU and towards the idea that Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence.
Attitudes towards Irish participation in the Rapid Reaction Force have remained more or less constant in the two polls. And there are interesting findings showing a majority thinks the rotation of commissioners when the EU reaches 27 members is unacceptable, as is the reduction of Ireland's share of EU votes.
Consistent threads run through these findings, suggesting a change in Irish attitudes towards the EU. There are significant concerns about the impact of integration on political life here.
The question is whether they are best addressed by rejecting the treaty or exploring alternative means of tackling them. A certain insouciance among the chattering classes about the consequences of voting No suggests substantial ignorance of what would be involved.
In strict realism, Ireland would be radically reclassified within the EU as a state that has rejected enlargement of the EU and reconsidered its approach to integration now that living standards have outpaced the EU average and reached net contributor status. This would realign it more with Euro sceptical Britain - ironically just as a re-elected Tony Blair prepares to argue the case for joining the euro.
Such a departure from the EU mainstream would be isolating and would reduce Ireland's influence while attempts were made to find a formula which would satisfy voters in another referendum.
The isolation would certainly extend to the accession states, who have looked to Ireland as a role model for catch-up development and political identity. That would upset the rapport built up with them in recent years, copperfastened by successive ministerial and presidential visits.
Economic uncertainty would be another consequence of a No vote. Foreign investment, including that from the US especially, is predicated on Ireland occupying a mainstream position in the EU. A prolonged renegotiation would raise questions about how that is changing. Political uncertainty would be added to that, as the Government strove to avoid the blame for losing the referendum.
Those who wish to avoid such outcomes but have reservations about the treaty need reassurance that their concerns can be addressed if it is accepted by the electorate. They need to hear more about that from politicians of all the parties which support the treaty.
Some of these concerns are easier to deal with than others, of course. Traditional sovereigntist attitudes drive some of those opposed to the treaty, based on long-standing opposition to European integration. It is strange to hear some of their number defending the existing arrangements, which they have strenuously opposed over the years.
They have not accepted the argument that for a small state, sovereignty is best preserved by being pooled in such a way that large states used to getting their way by using their power are instead constrained by the rule of law. It is not surprising that these should oppose a treaty which extends qualified majority voting and permits groups of states to go ahead with enhanced co-operation. They are even more worried by the post-Nice agenda, which opens up a constitutional debate on the future of an enlarged EU.
BUT THERE are ample means to protect Ireland's interests within this process, based on the need for unanimity on the outcome and clear definition of Ireland's changing interests and position in a continental political entity. Over the next three years, there is an opportunity to consider how this can best be done domestically and in the EU, including through a special forum open to civil society and interest groups as well as political parties.
In contrast to old-fashioned sovereignty, such debates must take full account of how to extend democratic accountability beyond national boundaries without collapsing nation-states into a full federal structure.
If bureaucrats are too powerful, why not subject them to elections, for example for the president of the Commission? Why not replace or supplement the unintelligible treaty texts with a simplified constitutional document making it clear where political responsibility lies? Political communities are built in this way across national boundaries. The EU's significance is that precisely such a process is now under way under the pressures of globalisation and the need to reassert political authority over multinational economic actors who wish to escape it at national level.
The French prime minister, Mr Lionel Jospin, made a powerful speech this week containing many suggestions how this might be done. He emphasised the originality of this project.
The same minister told opponents of the Nice treaty this week that while he admired their passion and wished his own side had more of it, he disagreed profoundly with their politics. Supporters of the treaty might recall Yeats's line, that "the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity". If they are not to lose the vote, they will need better arguments and much more activity on the ground.
