It may seem paradoxical to some readers to find me in the role of defender of the European Union after being for so many years one of its staunchest critics.
The reason for my apparent change of heart is the fundamental change of direction in which the Nice Treaty would take the present Union, and the effect this would have on the future of the wider Europe, including those EU applicant states involved in what seem to be interminable negotiations to join.
Over the years, despite our differences, I have come to appreciate the passion and commitment of those who have said that they wish to bring Europe together, healing the wounds of past wars and attempting to prevent future ones. What has been called the "European ideal" is something we can all believe in, in our different ways.
It is no surprise that many Irish people have embraced that ideal. It should also be no surprise to find critical voices raised about how this is translated into the actuality of the European Union. Critical analysis and opposition, even if unpopular in some circles, is the heart of democracy.
When political representatives cannot or will not provide it, then the citizen must. Having said this, it is the case that I would rather preserve the fragile partnership of the present European Union, with all its flaws, than see it broken apart and the checks and balances between states thrown away by the Nice Treaty.
The EU has been a partnership of legal equals up to now, despite the obvious differences between its member-states in size, population and economic and political weight. The essence of this partnership has been that each state has a veto on fundamental change.
Thus, all 15 members agreed to the euro currency, even though Britain, Denmark and Sweden opted out of it. The Schengen passport-free area was also unanimous, even though Britain and Ireland are outside it.
Nice abolishes this national veto on fundamental change in the EU. It permits an inner group of eight states to "do their own thing", even if the rest disagree - eight out of 15, out of 20, or out of a putative EU of 27. This is the most important thing in the Nice Treaty. It is the main reason we are being invited to change our Constitution to permit it.
Nice divides the EU club into two clubs. It inaugurates a two-tier EU. It moves the goalposts in face of the 12 applicant states. This inner group is likely to be the original EEC Six, led by Germany and France, plus a couple of others.
There are rules for so-called "enhanced co-operation". What the inner group does must be consistent with what the EU has achieved up to now - the single market, the euro currency and so on. But there is nothing to prevent the inner eight setting up a federal or confederal state among themselves, endowing it with a constitution, harmonising company taxes, transferring final decision on human rights matters to the EU Court of Justice and making that body supreme over national constitutions and the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights in relation to vast areas of our lives.
Nice permits this inner group of EU states effectively to hijack the EU institutions - the Commission, Council, Court and Parliament - for their own purposes and to confront the others thereafter with continual economic and political faits accomplis. This division of the EU is to take place in the 2004 treaty, which is pointed to in Nice. It could add profoundly to the division between the North and South of Ireland, depending on where we would go.
Germany and France are quite open about their ambitions. "We could have a Union for the enlarged Europe and a federation for the avant-garde," says Jacques Delors. "A federation . . . and government which, within the EU, should speak with one voice," says Joschka Fischer. "A full federation," says Chancellor Schroder. A confederation, say the French. They cannot do it if we say No to Nice.
EU enlargement is merely an excuse. The Amsterdam Treaty is more favourable to a practical EU enlargement of four to five states before 2004 than is Nice. Amsterdam provides for EU enlargement before EU "deepening" - that is, further integration. Nice provides for "deepening" before enlargement - the two-tier EU, the abolition of the national veto in 35 areas, the shift in voting power to the big states from the small, militarising the EU in quite a new way. Logically and practically, deeper integration must make EU enlargement more difficult.
As responsible Europeans we should vote No to Nice in order to hold the EU together. By doing that, Ireland can precipitate the debate on the future of the EU "pre-Nice" instead of "post-Nice". Post-Nice, the fork in the EU road will have been taken. Permission to divide the club into two clubs will have been given. It will be too late to close the stable door.
Truly it is a blessing that no other EU state has yet ratified the Nice Treaty. Their peoples, indeed some of their governments, will cheer us and respect us hugely for rejecting it.
Anthony Coughlan is secretary of The National Platform research and information group. He is senior lecturer emeritus in social policy at Trinity College Dublin.
Tomorrow:
Michael Buckley of Allied Irish Bank argues in favour and Andy Storey of Afri argues against the Treaty of Nice