Nothing much has changed since then. A declaration that Irish neutrality is not affected by the Nice Treaty is not worth the paper it is written on; as pro-neutrality groups have stated, a protocol is what is needed. The militarisation of the EU and its increasing overlap with NATO needs to be resisted; the people of the Republic are the one set of voters to be given the chance.

Recent opinion polls show that the struggle for a yes or no vote may be on a knife edge. It is a shame that complicated issues such as this are still decided by the primitive yes/no methodology when much more sophisticated means of making decisions are available. While it is hoped that a majority of the voters do decide to go for no again, a more sophisticated voting mechanism might also have shown that the majority of 'no' voters do want to see the enlargement of the EU. A 'no' vote means that the expansion of the EU would be slowed but not stopped; new countries can be admitted under existing rules. But the most important thing is that the future of the EU should not go off further in the wrong track with European militarism having the capacity to go into the ascendant, and the EU becoming identical with NATO.

There is also a democratic deficit at the heart of the EU which is not only worrying in the long term but also something which should be tackled sooner rather than later. A 'no' vote will bring this home to the EU establishment.

So it is still necessary to vote 'no'. It may not make Ireland popular but it would be, again in the longer term, a distinct service to the EU and the whole of Europe.

The whole of the local political establishment is backed by the EU and bodies such as the churches (in general) in saying 'yes'. Poised against them, again, are the smaller socialist parties, the Green Party, Sinn Fein, and groups like PANA (Peace And Neutrality Alliance) and AFrI (Action from Ireland). And the political establishment dares to accuse the "no's" of selfishness. Of course some people may vote 'no' for selfish reasons - but many people may vote 'yes' for selfish reasons (such as they do not want Ireland to 'look bad' or selfish by voting 'no'). - but since when have the above parties and groups been out for selfish personal gain? It is a nonsense.

We need a principled 'no' vote on 19th October. The electorate have shown their wisdom before in a repeat referendum when Fianna Fail tried to get rid of proportional representation in voting forty years ago. Then the 'no' vote was even bigger the second time. Let us hope and work that history repeats itself this time (though one wonders what 'de Valera' Fianna Fail supporters would have made of Bertie Ahern's attempt to sell out the remains of Irish military neutrality).

The North: Paralysis threatens again
[Editorial updated to 6th October]
In the nonviolent handbook, paramilitarism is simply a version of militarism, not a different animal altogether. This does not mean that the constraints on state military forces may not be greater than on paramilitary ones but simply that both look to use violence as a means to solve problems, to arrive at solutions.

Unfortunately the fix and fixation of paramilitarism remains in Northern Ireland (but please note that this is not an attempt to put blame solely on paramilitaries; some people will use them for their own ends, or use them as an excuse to back up reactionary policies). The police raid on Sinn Féin offices at Stormont, and on Sinn Féin personnel elsewhere, looks like it may let unionists off the hook for crashing the Assembly and its structures. Unionists, understandably perturbed about the continuation of the IRA, had already set new deadlines which may be more difficult to overcome than previous ones. While it is true that Sinn Féin is in government and the smaller loyalist parties are not, it is nevertheless true to say that the unionist parties largely ignore the situation of loyalist paramilitaries, those 'on their own side', and the threat which they pose to progress in Northern Ireland. Instead they are fixated on republican paramilitarism which, so far as the IRA is concerned, has generally had silent guns and bombs. At the moment the greatest threat to life comes from the loyalist paramilitaries and in particular the UDA after the expulsion of Johnny Adair and his allies. Non-IRA military republicanism is a threat to progress but not any way as great as on the loyalist side.

No one should take comfort from paramilitary groups falling out between themselves or within themselves. That spells death and destruction, both internally and, over a longer time frame, externally. It also spells an ongoing inability to grapple with the real issues of identity and political, social and economic progress which need to be tackled.

Large sections of unionism still wish to topple the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. We have said it before and we say it again; it is not that there is no alternative to the Good Friday Agreement (or indeed that it is in itself a fantastic agreement in its detail) but that to arrive at another would entail much wading through blood to end up with something which would be in essence quite similar (because to get across the board agreement it would be impossible to be very dissimilar). It is far better to leave the Good Friday Agreement in place and work to establish a new way of working together so that in a generation's time an understanding (sic) can be reached which does not have the severe limitations of the existing Agreement.

The allegations about spying by the IRA at Stormont have led to a whole raft of conspiracy theories - some of which may be true. The scale of the operation by the PSNI certainly led to the maximum propaganda damage to Sinn Féin. If there was spying, was it for IRA 'contingency targeting' or simply to keep Sinn Féin ahead in negotiations? In either case they have been naughty boys but the 'shock, horror' reaction is a bit much. What do states, armies and lots of other bodies do in regard to intelligence? They spy. The cover of the Irish edition of 'The Observer' on Sunday 6th October had two headlines; one was about the attempt to avoid the collapse of 'the crumbling Northern Ireland peace agreement' and the other concerned the founder of the Real IRA being likely to get a less serious charge, and a much shorter sentence, in the Republic because the British authorities wanted to cover up the British intelligence agency MI5's role in Ireland. Can we not take it for read that everyone tries to spy on everyone else? Is this reason enough to bring down the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement? No.

But another aspect of the situation at the moment is that demography and voting patterns are going in republicans' favour in Northern Ireland (partly an increasing proportion of Catholics, partly Sinn Fein feeling in the ascendant with regard to the SDLP). It seems crazy that unionists do not quit while they are ahead, so to speak. They may feel pain from the Good Friday Agreement but seem not to recognise that overall they won. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, and posturing about cooperation with republicans in the North or with the Republic is merely going to damage their cause. And lead to a further upsurge in paramilitary violence, which thrives in uncertainty (another self-fulfilling prophecy).

The more that unionists dig in the more that their predictions in general may turn out to be self-fulfilling, given the demographic changes mentioned above (and despite uncertainties as to how this will pan out in the longer term). The sectarian headcount from last year's Northern Ireland census is not out yet but from what is known it looks like Catholics are at least 46% of the population. If we arrive at a situation some years from now that 51% of the population of Northern Ireland is Catholic that will certainly not mean a 'united Ireland' but unionists and loyalists should look up, look ahead and be generous now. While they get the chance and have the choice they can win friends and influence people.

If the downward spiral continues and the Good Friday Agreement and its structures becomes part of a short-lived history, or at best in hibernation, Northern Ireland is unlikely to move back to the worst of the recent Troubles. But in a uncertain political atmosphere, paramilitarism will thrive and more visits to graveyards will be in order, while tension in local interface areas between Catholics and Protestants will continue to blight the lives of whole neighbourhoods and local areas. The whole of Northern Ireland will continue to be caught in the curse of a divided society which has to live together but can never quite work out how to do it. Unable to escape the past it will be destined to repeat it until eventually enough people realise that working together, painful as it may be, is the only way in which not only can the whole society make progress but each side can live in respect and dignity. It is a crying shame that, for a whole variety of reasons but primarily because of the sectarian divide, we are such slow learners.

The world: Don't attaq Irack
"You wouldn't be standing there if we didn't beat Hitler" said the indignant passer by to Justice Not Terror vigillers. This is true in a way but ignores lessons of history. Fascism, totalitarianism and Nazism are no respecters of human values of any kind. But in relation to the debate about whether to go to war with Iraq or not this is simplicity in the extreme.

The approach which we need to take is breaking into the circles of violence perpetrated by the world powers in the 20th century and into the 21st century. The rise of Hitler was only possible through the aftermath of the First World War and Germany's experience of war reparations. In other words, the 'War to End All Wars' created the next World War. And the First World War was itself the product of competing military imperialisms. This may be reducing history to its most simple but it is nevertheless true and not simplistic. And Saddam Hussein's power originally stemmed from western arms and support to him to oppose Iran. It was partly the West which created the creature that Saddam Hussein is today.

Attacking Iraq would create great animosity in the Moslem and Arab world and lead to increased attacks on the west of the 11th September 2001 variety which took place in the USA. Greater deaths have been caused in Iraq each month by sanctions which hit the sick and defenceless than the deaths a year ago in al Qaeda attacks on the USA.

Of course action needs to be taken regarding Iraq. The first action needed is to remove the obscene sanctions which deprive ordinary Iraqis of the medical help and drugs they need. But secondly vigilance is needed to ensure that Iraq does not develop more weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

The Iraqi regime is most likely to use the weapons of mass destruction it does possess if it is attacked and its leadership feels it is a situation of 'all or nothing', or, feeling the situation is hopeless militarily, to exact some revenge. The USA and the UK, if they go to war, may again create a self-fulfilling prophecy that Saddam Hussein is prepared to use his weapons of mass destruction.

And how about the world powers getting rid of some of their weapons of mass destruction before they start moralising to others? If you consider how 'unsafe' (i.e. near use) US nuclear weapons have been at times (e.g. the Korean War), and the current US plans to develop new battlefield nuclear weapons, we would be wrong to think of the West's weapons as being 'in safe hands'. And increasing information is appearing about the USA's naked interests in regard to Iraqi oil in the light of the USA's ostrich-like refusal to countenance a change to its high oil consumption policies. The USA has no high moral ground to stand on. 

Dear friends,

Here in Ireland, the Nice Treaty is a burning issue just now. You may have heard that on 19 October we're going to have a referendum on it. (Yes, another one…)

I gather there’s little interest in these EU treaties outside Ireland. Not too surprising, really, as we're the only country in the whole of the EU where the people are being allowed a chance to give our opinion (in itself, not a wonderful sign of democracy). 

Last time, I know there was general amazement that Ireland said No to Nice, and many people in other countries were led to believe that what we were voting against was enlargement. 

This time, I'd like to explain in advance to people I know outside Ireland, so that a repeat of our No won’t seem so puzzling. That’s why I’m sending you this now.

The attached document [not attached here, but referring to a Green Party statement on Nice – Ed] explains why many of us will be sticking to our No vote (the Treaty hasn’t been changed since last time round – which part of the word No is it that they don’t understand?!). I don’t belong to any political party, but I find this Green Party manifesto useful as it sets out the arguments I support – arguments that are pro-enlargement, pro-democracy and pro-neutrality – better than I could.

So – why are we having a second referendum on the same treaty? (It is the same treaty – the declarations added on to it are not actually part of it, they’re not legally binding in the way that a protocol would have been).

Is it that we’re super-democratic? Not exactly. In fact, the opposite.

Our Constitution won't let our government give away any of our sovereignty without checking with us first, in a referendum.  So last year, wanting to sign the Nice Treaty, they had to ask our permission. We said No. But that was the wrong answer, you see. So now they’re saying "Here you are, do that again – and this time, kindly do as you’re told".

How dare they?! When does a referendum count, and when does it not? Is this not an insult to our referendum process? To our democracy?

You have no idea of the huge pressure that’s been on us since we unexpectedly said No. Bullying ("No to Nice will lead to EU sanctions against Ireland / Ireland will no longer be a full member of the EU" etc.) and even – there’s no other word for it – lies ("No to Nice will prevent enlargement"). It’s difficult to counteract that.

It’s especially difficult as it’s not in our nature to be awkward, to stick our necks out and upset people. If anything, a criticism of Irish people is that we shrink from saying a straightforward No when we think it’s not what the other person wants to hear (sometimes – as people in business, for example, will tell you – with most undesirable consequences…). Our last referendum was in June 2001 – some think it’s no accident this one has been delayed until two months before the planned accessions: it’s to maximise the psychological pressure on us, on our weak point. "Can you really look all these eager countries in the eye and tell them you’re prepared to delay the accession process on them?" Not easy, for a well-brought-up Irish person. (And we’re still being told voting No would prevent enlargement.)

So how come we have the nerve enough to do such a thing?

I’m strongly in favour of the accession of new countries. However, Nice is offering enlargement on bad terms – it would make the EU less democratic for all of us.  Unluckily for the applicant countries (most of whom only recently emerged from the Soviet bloc, and have enjoyed sovereignty for only a short while), they're being allowed into the EU at a time when, under the Nice Treaty, suddenly the bigger states would be getting a lot more power than the smaller ones. 

The founders of the EEC were very conscious that Europe was just emerging from a world war, and were keen to ensure that all nations – including the smaller ones – had an equal voice.  Hence the famous Partnership of Equals, with the Commissioner system, for example, and the veto.  Careful checks and balances.  Now to be swept away, with Nice – just in time for the new countries.

Why can’t they join now – and then let us have the discussion on changing the institutional arrangements, when they’re at the table too? (As suggested by a former Dutch Foreign Affairs minister congratulating Ireland on our No vote.) When Ireland joined, we negotiated first – these countries are being told "Take it or leave it".

Bad for them – and bad for us all.

So, quite apart from any concerns about the undermining of Ireland’s neutrality and our betrayal of the UN (which I’ll spare you!), this may be our last chance to halt the undermining of democracy within the EU institutions. And – no other country can vote on it.

Voilà. I hope this will help you and your friends to understand why a great many people in Ireland are again going to vote No to Nice, out of a deep concern for democracy and this time – it must be said – out of anger too.