This month the Irish electorate is being asked to give its verdict once more on an EU Treaty. Making choices, as a voter, about the future of the EU is not an easy task. In many ways, we lack an adequate vocabulary to describe and assess the EU as a form of political order. It lies somewhere between the traditional nation state and an international organisation. It shares attributes of both but is neither.
We must grapple with this essential "betweeness" of the Union. Furthermore, we are confronted with the inherent dynamic of the process. The EU is characterised more by transition and change than stability. We already know before voting on the Amsterdam Treaty, that we will have to vote on another Treaty in the not so distant future, to accommodate enlargement to the east.
Status Quo Not An Option
The status quo is not an option as the Union attempts to harvest sufficient authority and legitimacy to cope with the challenge of the European-wide order. Membership of the Union implies acceptance of a developing and evolving set of institutions and treaties, of embedding the nation state in a wider collective project.
In addition, there is the dilemma of how much real choice we have. This State, a small state with a very open economy, is locked into the wider European framework. The costs of exit, both economically and politically, would be extremely high.
Even the Danish electorate, which has a hard core of voters who remain deeply opposed to European integration, did not risk a second "no" vote in 1993, because the issue would have then become Denmark's long term relationship with the Union.
This is not just a dilemma for small states; Europe's old powers are also locked into the system. The question has moved beyond "yes" or "no" to the Union, to the challenge of what kind of Union.
Towards Consolidation
The Amsterdam Treaty is part of a process of consolidation in the EU, the nature of which should be clearer sometime around 2020. Enlargement is a key dimension of this process. The geographical boundaries of the EU will become apparent as the process of enlargement unfolds.
EMU is a central feature of the Union's consolidation as a market space and a source of economic governance. Like all of the big projects of the past in the Union, EMU will have a significant evolutionary component as the single currency becomes a living regime. All states and regions in the Union will be exposed to further supranational influences in many areas of economic policy through surveillance and monitoring of national policy and performance.
More and more facets of economic policy will become the "common concern" of the member states acting together. Developments in the area of justice and home affairs are also likely to have a major impact on the nature of the EU in the future. Market integrations and the free movement of people have increased pressures to enhance co-operation in relation to justice and home affairs, and are likely to intensify in future. Combating trans-national crime and securing the external borders of the Union are now matters for the "common concern" of the Union. Each state's territoriality is embedded in a wider European territoriality.
What Kind Of Union
How can we begin to characterise the kind of political and economic order that is emerging in Europe. It is not, nor is it likely to develop into a traditional federation, a so-called united states of Europe. Rather than transcending the nation state, the Union repositions and re-defines state and nation hood.
This is highlighted in the Treaty of Amsterdam with its emphasis on the Union as a "community of values", dedicated to a kind of civic statehood based on democracy and human rights. The inclusion of sanction mechanisms for the abuse of human rights in the Treaty underpins the role of the Union in establishing a liberal order for the European continent.
The challenge is now to make this liberal order more democratic so that individual Europeans feel at home with the Union and its institutions. The Single Act and the Treaty on European Union underline the importance of the market and economic integration to the Union.
However, the Union has attempted to go beyond unfettered market integration with its policies on cohesion and social regulation. The international role of the Union points to its reliance on soft power, such as aid and trade, rather than the hard power of coercion.
The Union is weak in terms of the traditional levers of power; it lacks a government, a large bureaucracy and a sizeable budget. It has turned its weakness into strength, into an ability to supply a measure of governance to western Europe and now the wider continent.
This it has done by co-opting national actors into its myriad institutions, committees and councils. The EU privileges expect knowledge and promotes trans-nationalism. It fosters a problem solving and partnership approach to collective problems. National civil servants serve their state interests but also the collective project. As integration intensifies, the impact of the Union on domestic institutions and processes has deepened.
We will vote on Amsterdam at the same time as voting on a historic settlement between these islands. The EU is a significant part of the context of the settlement. The agreement which emerged from the peace talks with its multiple strands is not unlike the institutional pattern fostered by the EU.
The provisions of British-Irish relations and north/south relations on the island fit into the emerging pattern of European regionalism. Moreover, the participants in the new Assembly could learn much from the European policy style with its focus on problem solving and partnership rather than zero-sum conflict. This policy style rests on an understanding that while each participant gives voice to individual interests, these are tamed by common concerns and a collective interest.
Brigid Laffan is the Jean Monnet professor of European politics at UCD.