It’s our patriotic duty to read the EU treaty we’ve been asked to vote on

WELL, are we going to vote for it or not?

We’re going to have a referendum — I’m guessing it will be soon — and it will be a crucial decision. This time, it will be a much more crucial decision for us than it will be for Europe as a whole. But the outcome in Ireland will be closely watched, let there be no doubt about that. And the result will be influential beyond our shores.

No, I’m not talking about Euro 2012. We fought hard to participate in that, and no doubt we’ll set everything else to one side when it comes to the need to do our patriotic duty and cheer our country on. Already thousands of Irish men and women have mortgaged at least a bit of their futures to try to raise the cash to be there, in Poland and the Ukraine. And all we want is that the Boys in Green should transcend the limitations of talent, and put character and teamwork on display, in order to make their country proud of them.

A bit like the other Boys in Green did in Paris on Sunday afternoon. Not that there is any shortage of talent in the Irish rugby team, but history and tradition was very much against them at the kick-off in the Stade de France. And yet they almost pulled off a miracle. In the end it was France that was fighting tooth and nail for the honour of the team, and it produced ten minutes of the most heart-stopping and unforgettable defensive rugby I’ve ever seen from an Irish team. They were the ones who walked off disappointed, but they should have been proud. Anyway, enough of all that. As I said at the start, we’re about to have a referendum, and that means we — each and every one of us — has a patriotic duty to perform. Actually, we have two patriotic duties.

I’m not going to tell you how to vote in the referendum, because I understand only too well the different feelings we all have about the issues it raises. I do feel honour bound to tell you that I intend to vote yes, and over the next few weeks I’ll tell you why I’m voting that way.

But this week I want to talk about the other patriotic duty we all have. We need to read the treaty we’re being asked to vote on. That’s something our leaders have failed to bother with in the past — and in the process they insulted our intelligence by asking us to vote for something they weren’t prepared to read. But let’s not any of us make that mistake this time.

It’s not a long document. It does have its fair share of gobbledegook in it, like all these things do. But it’s possible, with a little patience, to plough through it. I’ve already downloaded it from the European Council’s website at europa.eu and saved it on the desktop of my computer.

It’s official title is the Treaty on Stability, Coordination And Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. There’s a huge amount of the usual introductory bumph, which is basically a description of where Europe is right now, and a reminder of the economic and fiscal commitments to which we’re all already signed up. And after that there are 16 articles that constitute the treaty.

The first one says that the treaty is intended to strengthen budgetary disciple, and to apply to the countries in the eurozone. The second article says that the Treaty will be interpreted in accordance with existing European law. So far, so simple.

The third article begins to set out what is called the Fiscal Compact. These are the rules that must apply to countries in the eurozone in future. And they are tough, demanding, but pretty straight forward.

Countries obeying the rules will set themselves the objective of moving their budgets towards balance, and keeping them that way. They won’t incur significant annual deficits except in exceptional circumstances. They will work to get their overall debts down to below 60% of their national wealth, and seek to keep it that way. They are the basic rules of the compact.

The next few articles of the Treaty deal with how countries are to be encouraged to keep to the rules. By reporting their borrowing plans in advance to the European Council and the commission. By submitting themselves to the commission in respect of their plans to get debt under control (these steps are called “partnerships”). There will be annual reports about each of the countries involved, to determine their compliance with the basic rules.

If the commission decides that any country has broken the rules, the country can be taken to the European Court of Justice, and very large financial penalties can be imposed.

There are other articles in the treaty about a commitment to work towards more economic convergence, and about the holding of euro summits twice a year (as opposed to, or in addition to, European summits). Article 14 makes it clear that the treaty will come into effect when twelve of the participating countries (there are 25 altogether) have ratified it.

What happens to those who fail to ratify the treaty? That’s not covered within the treaty itself. But once the treaty is ratified, membership of the eurozone will be subject to tough rules and disciplines, with sanctions added.

THE funny thing is, these rules and disciplines aren’t significantly different from what has gone before. They are being restated here in tough language, with the apparent determination to punish countries that break the rules. And it’s clear that the reason that is being done is because of an agreed analysis among most of the eurozone countries.

And that analysis is simple. If we don’t strengthen the rules, the euro will be weakened to a point of irretrievable damage. A weak euro is bad for Europe, but a fatally damaged euro could undermine everything that Europe stands for. If the compact works, the euro will. Little by little, start to get stronger.

That’s the analysis. I know some of you will argue that I have oversimplified the description of what’s in the treaty, and the reasoning behind it. If you think I have, here’s the challenge. Go and read it. All told, the relevant articles cover about 2,500 words – that’s about the same as reading two of these columns. It doesn’t take long.

As the debate on this treaty hots up, you’ll be getting everyone else’s interpretation. Those arguing in favour will have one view, those against another. Not all of the interpretations you’ll read will be honest. Some will tell you all sorts of things that aren’t in the treaty, some will be adding their own conspiracy theories. In the fullness of time, there will be an independent commission who will have their own go at explaining the treaty before you are asked to vote on it.

Won’t it be wonderful to be able to say, “thanks, but I can make up my own mind — I’ve read it myself”. That’s the great thing about being a citizen, isn’t it. When we’re informed, we’re the boss.