Like all minor parties the Greens have their moments in the sun and their periods of gloom. And this is an important point to bear in mind when, as Democrats, we see headlines predicting our demise and the permanence of the Greens as the major non-major party force in Australia.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the Greens, whilst correctly being able to claim some credit, (the other part should be claimed rightly by our Party) for major environmental improvements in this country in the last twenty years, are not a Party that has much policy coherence in many other areas.

Bob Brown and his Green colleagues in this country make much of their policy positions being in harmony with those of the Green movement internationally. So it is with some interest that one notes the position of Senator Brown's Irish colleagues on the question decided last weekend in Ireland – should that country say yes to the Treaty of Nice that allows the expansion of the European Community into former Eastern bloc countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic?

One would have thought that the Irish Greens, a Party that seeks to champion human rights and economic and social equity, would campaign vigorously to allow the people of Poland, for example, to access the human rights jurisdiction of the EU, or give Polish small businesses access to German and French markets.

But the Greens, unsuccessfully as it turned out, opposed a yes vote on the Treaty! And in doing so they exhibited a selfishness and inconsistency that would not go astray in the Irish equivalent of One Nation.

According to the Irish Greens, Ireland should have voted no to European expansion for a range of reasons. These reasons included, that as a result of expansion, Ireland would have less of a voice in the EU because their would now be 27 members instead of 15 and Ireland would lose its automatic right to a EU commissioner! Then there is the opposition based on the fact that the loss of a veto by Ireland in trade matters within the EU will be a 'spur to the headlong rush to globalisation.' In other words, the Greens wanted to maintain the right of the Irish to protect inefficient industries behind high tariff walls at the expense of Eastern European small businesses that are seeking to expand the wealth of their nations, which are the poorest in Europe.

Never mind the fact, that without massive EU subsidies over the past 20 years, Ireland would not be recording some of the fast economic growth rates in the world. It is the EU that has created the 'Celtic Tiger' – not the Greens.

The Irish Greens are concerned about a pan-European entity emerging.

They want none of a united and strong European (as opposed to Irish) view on matters such as trade and defence. In relation to the latter, at least, their view is curious. Many would argue that it is critical that Europe as a continent adopt a common defence and foreign policy stance, particularly in times when the US is belligerent and unilateralist as it is at the moment.

As the New York Times put it in its editorial of October 24 this year, "Ireland owes much of its prosperity to its three decades of membership in the European Union. So it was both poignant and fitting for Irish voters last weekend to offer the same opportunity of E.U. membership to Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and the people of seven other nations – all aspiring, in a sense, to become the next Ireland." What a pity the Greens in Ireland don't see it that way.

The Irish Greens' incoherent and stridently nationalistic approach to the Treaty of Nice demonstrates yet again that when this worldwide environmental movement steps outside its area of expertise it is hard to take it seriously.