The Government and political establishment expect the Nice Treaty to be approved by the people, but more than ever, the referendum outcome is not being taken for granted. This time the traditional opponents of greater integration have been joined by other forces. The result may be a more wide-ranging debate on Europe than we have had before.
Popular support for the European economic and political project has fallen from 82 per cent in the 1971 referendum on accession to 69.5 per cent (Single European Act, 1987), 68.7 per cent (Maastricht Treaty, 1992) down to 60.4 per cent (Amsterdam Treaty, 1998). Turnout has fallen too from the 70.9 per cent who came out to vote in 1971. Just 44.1 per cent voted on the Single European Act in 1987, despite the fact it coincided with the European Parliament elections. The holding of the 1992 Maastricht referendum on the same day as a series of abortion referendums enthused just 57.3 per cent. Even holding the Belfast Agreement referendum on the same day as that on Amsterdam in 1998 brought out only 56.2 per cent.
And compared to those issues, the three other questions to be decided on the same day as Nice are unlikely to send the electorate into a frenzy of popular participation. The people will be asked to delete references to capital punishment from the Constitution, provide for the disciplining of judges and approve Ireland's acceptance of the remit of the International Criminal Court.
There is, therefore, a danger of a very low turnout. Government sources are concerned it may be the more committed neutrality/ sovereignty/ Green campaigners, represented on previous occasions by articulate debaters such as Anthony Coughlan and Green MEP Patricia McKenna, whose supporters may come out in greater numbers to vote against.
On the other side of the ideological spectrum is an emerging pro-business view that given the opportunity, "Europe" will foist its generally social democratic social model on us. In the "Boston versus Berlin" choice posed last year by the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, business tends to share Ms Harney's preference for the American model of less regulation, tax and social spending.
Ms Harney will be campaigning in favour of Nice - a point she emphasised again yesterday in a speech to Dublin's financial community. But she has been joined in recent months by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Ms de Valera, the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, and the Attorney General, Mr Michael McDowell, in suggesting there is a need to limit further political evolution of the EU at the expense of national sovereignty.
Any internal Government debate on this will now be postponed until another day, however, in favour of ensuring the Nice Treaty is approved. A defeat would cause severe difficulties in Ireland's relationship with the EU - the treaty must be approved in all 15 member-states before it can take effect.
Unlike some of his colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, has been consistently "on message" in expressing traditional unambiguous support for the EU. He is understood to have disapproved of the tone adopted by some of his colleagues in response to the European Commission's censuring of the Government over what it saw as inflationary budget policies.
Mr Cowen's perspective is broader than the narrow economic criteria which often dominate debate on whether "Europe is good for us". Launching the White Paper yesterday he said Ireland's EU membership had an "overwhelmingly positive balance sheet" which included many benefits other than the economic ones of increased jobs, growth and exports and infrastructural development.
There had been political benefits such as the opportunity "to promote an approach to international relations which takes account of our distinctive traditions and interests". He also made the less measurable assertion that "our full participation in the Union has provided the backdrop to a wonderful increase in national self-confidence, reflected in the flowering of our cultural and artistic life, a development which contrary to the claims of the critics at the time has greatly benefited from forming part of the larger and culturally diverse European mainstream".
The Government is likely to pitch the debate as being about enlargement and not anything else. The treaty, Mr Cowen said yesterday, is designed to ensure an enlarged union is "in a position to take decisions and to function effectively".
However, opponents will ensure sovereignty, common security and defence will also feature in the debate. The Green Party said yesterday the treaty would give more power to the larger member-states at the expense of smaller ones. The debate is bound to be broadened beyond the Government's preferred issue of whether Ireland supports enlargement. And with Ireland expected to become a net contributor to EU funds, the old "vote yes for structural funds" argument is gone as well.
So Mr Cowen's movement of the argument beyond economics is likely to be echoed by his colleagues. The Government will probably emphasise the broader political and cultural benefits of EU membership, selling the project as being about more than money.
But the sales pitch may be postponed. The foot-and-mouth crisis means there is doubt that referendums will take place on May 31st, as originally planned by the Government. On the date, Mr Cowen would say only the Government was "anxious to ensure that that option remains available to us". It was proceeding on the basis a referendum on that date would be possible, but he recognised also the possibility of a postponement.
Mark Brennock is Political Correspondent of The Irish Times