The message that the Amsterdam Treaty contains important new protections and confers important new rights on the European citizen is one that needs to be forcefully made, according to the Attorney General, Mr David Byrne SC.
For the first time, the Treaty confers new competency on the institutions of Europe to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion and disability, he told a conference in Trinity College at the weekend. "Let there be no mistake about it, these protections matter greatly to the average Irish European and we should resist any cynical impulse to dismiss them as so much window-dressing."
As the run-up to the referendum gathered pace, Mr Byrne said, he expected to hear a great deal about what some saw as the Treaty's negative effects. "Dreary pictures will be painted of a European fortress, ring-fenced with draconian laws on visas and asylum. There will be alarmist and entirely unfounded statements to the effect that Irish soldiers are about to be conscripted into a pan-European army.
"That is not the treaty that Ireland signed and that is not the Europe that Ireland is a part of and is committed to remaining a part of."
The treaty addressed issues of close and urgent interest to people in promoting Europe as "an area of freedom, justice and security". It consolidated policies for the benefit of those citizens, as well as providing an effective and coherent external policy, institutional reform, closer co-operation and flexibility.
The former Taoiseach, Dr Garret FitzGerald, said that while the treaty had "good bits" that could be sold to voters, it was incomplete and lacked a core issue, while other key issues had been dodged and postponed. He was speaking at the conference on legal aspects of the treaty, organised by the Irish Centre for European Law (ICEL).
He said issues such as the number of commissioners and related voting arrangements with enlargement imminent needed to be settled before the addition of six frontline new EU members. In particular "a decision-making system appropriate to a community of more than 20 members" was needed.
This may happen in time for enlargement scheduled for 2002. If EMU got off the ground successfully, which he believed was likely, the climate for ratification could improve. With memberstates more relaxed, such outstanding issues might be resolved. "But it will require better leadership and cohesion, and a sense of our common interest."
Mr Paul Gallagher SC said the European Court of Justice had ensured protection of human rights within the EU context, but there remained a need for a European convention on human rights.
The court's dynamism had ensured protection, but "legal certainty" was not possible until a bill of rights was in place. The absence of such a convention under the treaty was a significant gap in a new order for Europe's citizenry.
"It cannot be denied that the treaty represents some major improvement on the Maastricht Treaty in a human rights context. However, it fails to address fundamental issues caused by a lack of a comprehensive bill of rights."
Media suggestions that the treaty was "an irrelevance to Europe's needs" or a "hopeless monstrosity" were rejected by Mr Nial Fennelly SC, advocate-general of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
A stage might have been reached in European integration which necessarily made it more difficult to make advances but, despite "patchwork and compromise", there had been advances through the inter-governmental conference process.
From the point of view of a lawyer and a member of the European Court of Justice, the treaty represented significant advances. In many areas there were no longer "no entry" signs preventing the court exercising jurisdiction.
The ICEL director, Mr Anthony Collins, said the treaty might mean that the process of European integration "finally bites on the legal profession". Rules of procedure on criminal and civil matters were laid out, signalling a first step towards harmonisation.
