The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Mr Ó Cuív, has elaborated on why he changed his mind on the Nice Treaty.
Mr Ó Cuív, who earlier this year revealed he had voted against the treaty while serving as minister of state for rural development in the last government, said he will have no difficulty in voting for the treaty in the next referendum.
The Minister said he was not sorry the referendum had been defeated, adding that if it is now passed, a significant signal would be sent to the European Union that the "citizens should not be taken for granted".
He said his initial concerns were about European militarisation; development of a federal government; the prospects of a common tax system and of over-regulation - particularly with regard to environmental directives. He credited the Irish Government, as opposed to the EU, for his change of mind, explaining that, "if you read the Nice Treaty, there is nothing about this in it".
His concerns had been addressed by the Taoiseach, who had laid down "a marker" that while the Government wanted to be active in Europe, it would not be drawn into a military alliance which would jeopardise the State's neutrality. Mr Ó Cuív said he was happy with this assurance. Similarly, he was satisfied that the sovereignty of the State would not be compromised, without consent, by the potential rise of a federal administration in Europe.
On tax harmonisation, he said the Government had again "made it clear" to Europe that, for logistical and geograpical reasons, this would be unfair to Ireland.
The physical remoteness of the island meant that extra costs would be incurred by producers in getting goods to a centralised market in Europe. Tax harmonisation would create an unequal situation where costs incurred by a producer in Central Europe would be less than those here.
The Minister also said his concerns about EU directives - particularly habitat directives and special areas of conservation - had been met by the Government.
On his concerns over environmental protection rules, he said he was articulating genuine concerns about "rules and regulations and their effect on people's lives".
He instanced a situation where the EU had sought to restrict turf- cutting, in a measure to protect bogs. It was, he said, a fact that 95 per cent of turf-cutting was undertaken by commercial interests, and while it was acceptable to "buy out" these interests, in relation to personal use "it was reasonable to allow people who cut turf to keep cutting turf".
He said there were many examples where the common good was not being put before "extreme views" on preservation.