Holding a referendum on any issue removes it from electoral politics, writes Martin Mansergh.
In Ireland, to many people's surprise, the Government held and narrowly lost a referendum on abortion two months before the general election of 2002, in which, unlike 1997, it was not an issue.
In 1992, three referendums related to the same subject were held with the general election. They were virtually buried in the election campaign, and had no discernible influence on the fortunes of any party, for the obvious reason that the electorate had separate decisions on them.
Failure to perceive this simple truth contributed to two heavy election defeats suffered by the Tory party when it tried to major on Europe.
If the emotive European issue of the day in Britain, be it euro membership, be it the constitutional treaty, is put out to referendum, the main issue where at gut level the Tory party has public support is sterilised.
While Ireland's European path is set, many people have some concern that Britain's path should not diverge too far from ours.
We have managed membership of the euro for five years, without Britain, and without any of the dire consequences predicted. The main loser unfortunately is Northern Ireland. There would be widespread misgivings about Tony Blair's commitment to a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty, not because democratic legitimation is undesirable, but because the decision seems to have been taken for transparent short-term party political motives. A determination to take on the Eurosceptic press in Britain with vigour and commitment post-election would be welcome, but it will require a political courage not so far shown. After two elections, which yielded thumping Labour majorities, Britain is still awaiting a referendum on the euro.
One also detects a half-wish that either the constitutional treaty will not necessarily be agreed in June, or alternatively that other countries holding a referendum will vote it down. If agreement on the treaty is Ireland's achievement, I doubt we will see a repetition of Nice 1.
I note with wry amusement a complimentary piece in Der Spiegel on Bertie Ahern's EU presidency and methods of negotiation. He is referred to as "the clever Taoiseach" in contrast to his "boorish predecessor" Silvio Berlusconi. "Clever" is rarely used of the Taoiseach by domestic commentators, except as part of the oft-quoted and double-edged encomium of Charlie Haughey.
Why? Because the adjective is normally reserved for those with an exclusive private education, high professional standing, a desirable address, and a barrister's clear uncluttered use of the English language!
Once the Oireachtas debate on the constitutional referendum on citizenship is over, there will probably be little more said before the vote.
While it is not racist to refer positively to the referendum in election literature, it will be of little benefit, as it is a separate issue. Holding it with elections will dampen down opportunities to work up an emotive debate or to capture the limelight.
I would be one of those who would have hoped that the referendum could have been avoided, especially after the Supreme Court decision not to give automatic rights of residence to parents from outside the EU. Pressure on the maternity hospitals, while an argument, is not the decisive one.
What Dan Boyle of the Green Party correctly called "the back door to EU citizenship" is actually the key issue. We are not in the position of the US and Canada, vast countries with only one or two borders. We are an island, where a person can, on the face of it, acquire both Irish and EU citizenship without ever entering the jurisdiction, and without the parents intending that the infant should have any further connection with Ireland.
We do have obligations to our EU partners. An EU about to take in 10 new members is hardly "fortress Europe", but if we think EU immigration policy should be more liberal we should concert that at EU level.
The right of a person born in Ireland to Irish nationality and citizenship goes back to Article 3 of the Constitution of 1922, confined to the Free State. Under Bunreacht na hÉireann, eligibility was regulated by statute. The 1956 Act states that "every person born in Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth" (32 counties), but then qualifies it in a later article, rather as is proposed now, requiring a person, not otherwise a citizen, to declare themselves to be one.
In practice, until recently, no one without Irish associations would have gone to the trouble of travelling to Ireland to have a child here, so the provisions based on birth gave rise to minimal practical difficulties for 75 years.
The changes to Articles 2 and 3 enacted by the people in 1998 substitute for theoretical jurisdiction over the whole island and the right to one State the entitlement to belong to one nation, albeit under two jurisdictions.
That entitlement to Irish citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland who choose to exercise it is unaffected, as is the Good Friday agreement itself, not a single line of which needs to be renegotiated for the purpose. Referendum results can have implications for other countries; hence, the British support for the proposal.
Emphasis has been put in recent days on citizenship being more than a formality of convenience, and in particular on Article 9.2, which states that "fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens".
Given that most of us would not wish to discourage unionists from taking out Irish passports, I presume it is to be interpreted as requiring loyalty to the State of those living under its laws, and in other circumstances at least respect for the State.
On the same issue, interestingly, The Irish Times editorial of September 4th, 2003, on British home secretary David Blunkett's proposal for a citizenship programme for immigrant applicants, suggested that we should "develop a citizenship programme of our own".