Vote Yes and face big tax hikes by Brussels decree; Vote No and do the rest of Europe a big favour, writes Frederick Forsythe.
DURING THE five marvellous years that I lived at Enniskerry in Co Wicklow, I came to love both the country and the people; but I also came to learn something no Brit should ever forget. The idea that there may be something whimsical about the Irish is the biggest confidence trick since the South Sea Bubble. Behind his cheery "Sláinte", Paddy is smart as paint and sharp as a new razor. This is nowhere more amply demonstrated than in the 35 years since Ireland and Britain joined what is now the European Union.
Back then Britain, though beset by many strikes, was big, rich and urban. Ireland was small, poor and still very agricultural. After joining, there was a marked contrast in how we played our cards.
London sent her Z-team over to Brussels to pursue Britain's interests. They did this by whingeing and whining, complaining and objecting. Nothing worked. British interests were over-ruled and outvoted. On the advice of our Foreign Office we groused, appeased, conceded and capitulated. Not very unnaturally we Brits have had the worst of all worlds. Dublin, by contrast, sent the brightest and best she had, and they were very bright and very good. They studied the Euro rule book until they could recite it and then played it like the Old Orange Flute. And the benefits flowed into Ireland in three cataracts.
Using the agricultural rule book, Dublin brought a torrent of financial support to Ireland's farmers that has transformed the old image of the bog-farm yielding a very meagre living; using the structural subsidies, more billions of punts and euro came west to build motorways, bridges, docks, ring roads, faculties, and industrial zones.
But the real stroke of genius came from inside the Irish Department of Finance. Going wholly against the grain of a high-tax philosophy, Dublin lowered taxes for incomers until Ireland became a tax haven. That brought company after company seeking to set up HQ in the new enterprise zones. Ireland responded by making available space, a bright and qualified young generation and eye-wateringly attractive corporate taxes.
So with all that, surely the Irish would sign any piece of paper Brussels set before them? The trouble is, as Bob Dylan told us, the times they are a-changing.
For one thing this Lisbon Treaty is only a treaty in name. It is really the EU constitution of three years ago which was comprehensively rejected by those two founding nations, the French and the Dutch. Why did they do that? Why is the same document, re-written with a new name, back before us, but with no one in all Europe except the so-called blessed Irish being offered a chance to be heard? And why has it been re-written in totally incomprehensible language?
On the third point let me offer you the Belgian foreign minister: "The aim of the constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable." On point two, let us listen to the original author, old Valery Giscard d'Estaing himself. "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly . . . All the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
So what is this instrument of government that dare not speak its name?
Well, across the Irish sea a team of scholars wrapped in icy towels has actually translated the impossible text into layman's language, and pretty unnerving stuff it is. It also explains my first question: why the French and Dutch said "No thanks" in 2005. But it is even more unnerving if you happen to be Irish.
For years, Irish governments have been able to tell the people: for every euro we pay in, we get six out. Very persuasive. But all that ends with this treaty. Ireland, wealthy, bursting at the seams with money, is to become a net contributor. You will have to start paying for the EU as we have for 35 years. There will be big tax hikes.
At a second level, the Lisbon Treaty insists (there is no more consultation after this document) that the farmers' May Day is over. The bouncy castle is to be punctured.
You might also ask: why this referendum at all, and why in June when we have until December 31st to ratify? Of course, your marvellous Constitution answers the first question. But hold: the Constitution says there must be a referendum to endorse any transfer of sovereignty. So why are politicians right across the continent saying there is no such transfer? Someone is not telling the truth; someone is trying to govern us by deception and ruse. The translated text reveals huge transfers of sovereignty, none more so than that in future the Irish need never be consulted again.
As for the month of June, that is easy. On July 1st France takes over the leadership and France has a fanatical agenda on which she will not be gainsaid and as ever has German support. She intends to get her way and in pole position is her determination to "harmonise" the tax base from Dublin to Warsaw.
When they say "harmonise" they mean "standardise". And Franco-Germany never "harmonises" towards the other guy. It is the other way around. France's Business tax rate is 34.43 per cent and she will not lower it. Germany's is 38.6 per cent.
The key to Ireland's booming business success is her own corporation tax rate: 12.5 per cent. It cannot stay like that once Brussels has the power to change it by decree. The treaty on which you will vote will soon confer that power-by-decree. This should never have slipped out at all and the French finance minister who boasted of it has been told to shut up . . . until July.
But there is a fourth hidden reef beneath the water. France is passionate that the EU of the future shall be a fully armed power with a war machine at its disposal. President Sarkozy does not intend to delay moving fast forward from the old St Malo agreement. Are there opt-outs for the present EU's four neutral states? There are not.
The pro-treaty faction may argue that the Irish can insist they never have to fight. But you can hardly be a member of a war-conducting alliance and claim to be neutral. Irish soldiers have been peace-keepers in UN helmets, and much appreciated, but French ambitions go a lot further than that.
So on agriculture, payment-drain, business taxes and neutrality, there are hidden snares in this text. Perhaps the Irish might think of saying: "Much as we love the EU, we would like to go back to the drawing board on this document until we fully understand ever line in it. So for the moment, thanks but no thanks."
It would take great integrity and moral courage. But if the Irish would do this on June 12th they would convey upon the other 500 million Europeans denied a voice a gift beyond rubies.
Frederick Forsythe is a novelist and wrote this commentary for Libertas, one of the groups campaigning for a No vote