To date, the referendum on the Nice Treaty has been marred by unsubstantiated rhetoric, indifference to fact and an ostrich-like approach to European issues.

One example, used by proponents in extolling the economic benefits of Nice, is the claim that ratification will open up new economic markets in Central Europe for our exporters. The fact is Nice does no such thing. Central European markets are already opened to the EU by virtue of association agreements (in fact, access is so free that Estonia is being required to raise tariff barriers as a condition of joining the EU).

A corollary of this argument suggests that critics of Nice are trying to deny trade opportunities to central European economies for selfish economic or obscure ideological reasons. This is a curious, and spurious, argument when one considers the example of Poland whose condition for joining is that its workers will be prevented from entering the EU to increase their job prospects while at the same time Poland cannot protect its small holders from hostile commercial acquisition. There are three main economic areas that should cause voters concern.

First, the upcoming role of the General Agreement on Trades in Services (GATS) and the effect Nice has on future negotiations.

In effect, it is the framework for a global programme of privatisation of public services.

GATS identifies 160 sectors to be subject to its rules. They range from high-tech telecommunications, health care, education services to refuse collections.

They would make government actions to keep local and public control over these services illegal. This is the latest in a series of global agreements designed to deregulate markets for the benefit of corporate interests.

However, in the case of GATS, deregulation will occur in areas that have been predominantly served by the public sector. This has led the World Trade Organisation to suggest that nation-states "reconsider the breadth and depth of their commitments on health and social services".

In specific reference to education the WTO insists that "government monopolies" are barriers to free trade. According to the European Commission, "GATS is not just something that exists between governments. It is first and foremost an instrument for the benefit of business".

Under the treaty proposals, the EU's negotiation and conclusion of GATS will be conducted under qualified majority (at present such negotiations are subject to the unanimity rule). The ATGWU believes there is a need for nations to reclaim democratic powers from multinational corporations that are increasingly dictating the terms of world economic relations, in defiance of labour rights, environmental concerns and the public interest.

Unfortunately, the Nice Treaty makes it easier for corporate interests to "get their way", in this instance by deregulating and privatising public services. Secondly, Nice could have a negative impact on the emergence of our own economic zone on this island, in particular, cross-Border economic co-operation and convergence.

Since its foundation, the EU has been based on the principle of unanimity and equality regarding major constitutional/ legal/political developments. This unanimity, however, will be undermined by the Nice Treaty's concept of enhanced co-operation, which allows, through qualified voting, a number of countries to proceed with further integration despite the opposition of other countries.

It is this constitutional innovation that has given rise to legitimate concerns over an "inner" and "outer" membership among EU states, or a "two-tiered Europe".

Such a development has particular concern for Ireland. We can foresee the prospect of the Government having to choose between more federally-minded states such as Germany and Belgium and the federal-sceptical British government, in the eventuality of enhanced co-operation developments.

YOU wouldn't have to be a soothsayer to predict that Britain will not be a leading proponent of increased integration. Therefore, were Ireland to opt for an "inner" membership, it would be participating in new institutional arrangements inapplicable to Northern Ireland. This issue of enhanced co-operation, therefore not only has implications for Ireland's relationship with the EU, but potentially with Northern Ireland in both the political and economic spheres.

Lastly, there is a more global perspective in this debate. At a time when peoples and nations are openly questioning the constraints imposed upon economies by the ruthless application of WTO trading regulations, we are being urged by certain interest groups to support a referendum which reinforces a laissez faire approach to international economic relations.

The EU has raised the rights of capital to premier status, while relegating - as witnessed in the rules governing workers' participation and consumer information - labour and citizen rights to a status conditional upon the prerogatives of capital. Ireland has the fortune of being the only member-state to have a popular vote on Nice. Therefore, we have the opportunity to pass judgment on this ongoing globalisation that denies social and economic protection, democratic accountability and environmental responsibility.

Some might claim that an EU referendum is the wrong place to debate issues of globalisation. Where, then, is this to be done? WTO rules are not put up for popular vote.

National parliaments are less able to promote social and environmental rights that contravene international trade regulations.

Often we hear of the need for an empowered EU to confront global interests whose powers transcends nation-states.

If so, then we can ask the question: does the Nice Treaty provide people, through nation-states or an empowered EU parliament, with the instruments to promote their interests? If not, then a No vote is a logical and almost necessary response.

Unlike the more hysterical pronouncements of Nice supporters - who claim all sorts of disastrous fallout in the event of rejection - voting No will mean nothing more than the opportunity to have a more considered and informed debate on these and other issues relating to the European project. It is not a matter of Nice or nothing. It is a matter of Nice or something better.

We have until December 2002 - over a year - before we have to ratify. Let's at least know what we are doing.

Michael O'Reilly is secretary of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union

Tomorrow: The Irish Congress of Trade Unions on why the Nice Treaty is good for Irish workers