Lisbon referendum

And I do wish I was at home to eat the Andy Nolan sausages, observe little Jack singing to the puppy, chasing the hens, and munching his way through the vegetable patch, oh, and to vote yes on Friday!

Yep, me too, p. I think last week’s poll numbers may have frightened a few people out of complacency.

Not quite answering John M’s question, but “because everyone you loathe is opposed to it, and everyone you respect is in favour of it” seems like a perfectly good reason to vote for something – even if you have no idea whatsoever what the ‘something’ is.

Thanks for the detailed rundown, Henry.

I have to disagree on point 5 though. Firstly, the bemoaned lack of democracy isn’t exclusive to EU treaties: voters are almost never directly involved in shaping any of the treaties their government signs. They also almost never get a say in any other big decisions their government makes, e.g. war, taxes, pensions, health-care. So the lack of direct democracy is inherent in representative democracy and not unique to EU politics. The difference lies less in the lack of democracy, but rather in the lack of transparency, accountability and general awareness of the issues. And this problem is caused as much by the EU as it is by the lethargy of the citizens. In fact the EU is trying to make people more aware of what is going on, but apart from the farmers, who are directly dependent on EU money for their livelihood, since many of them nowadays are more or less its employees or franchisees, nobody really seems to care about EU politics, it’s just perceived as too complex, boring and irrelevant. Only if we can change that attitude will the EU become a more democratic institution.

1. One Yes argument has been that if we vote No, all the other countries will hate us.

Although it’s clear that Eurocrats and the policital elite will hate us, it’s not clear the ordinary Europeans will. They may salute us for doing what their own governments would not let them do. And being hated by the elite is not likely to frighten voters.

Also, there’s a hint that any hatred will be based on feeling that Ireland, having benefitted from EU handouts when it was poor, is unwilling to be a net contributor to the budget now that we’re rich and the new members are poor. This has only been hinted at in the campaign to avoid drawing attention to the fact that we will indeed be net contributors: although the Treaty won’t affect this fact, it’s still not a vote-winning meassage for the Yes side.

2. As with a lot of debates, there are mixed messages: arguing that making the right choice is nothing to worry about (Yes is just some shuffling of the legal furniture / No is things carrying on as before) and arguing that making the wrong choice is a disaster (No is we’re chucked out of the EU / Yes is we’re trapped in its legal chains).

These are confusing signals about its importance. And it’s depressing to be presented with a choice where the option is not to produce something wonderful but rather to avoid something terrible.

3. The Treaty is a repackaging of the failed Constitution, with a figleaf of minor adjustments. In a referendum, it feels like an affront to the will of the people. In a legislature, there is nothing abominable about a failed bill being represented: either with some adjustments to placate opponents; or unmodified, with opponents placated by external means.

4. It’s increasingly clear that Ireland’s model of ratification by referendum is untenable: even if this treaty scrapes through, will the EU want to stake the next one on the whims of a small country electorate? The catch-22 is that Ireland’s voters will never pass the referendum that would be required to end this model, even (or especially) if the alternative is a threat of expulsion from the EU. With hindsight, this should have been done in the original SEA referendum in 1987; that horse has bolted.

How nice to come home and find nothing has changed, that the ingredients of the Irish sausage are as consistent as the Ganly.

A small piece of gristle: From a report of a confidential document in the Guardian of last Sat. Paris wants to have common EU funding of military operations, A European fleet of military transport aircraft, European military satellites, a permanent European military defence college and the development of exchange programmes for officers among EU states. And Sarkozy strutting for the next 6 months.

This accords with the 20 pages in the Treaty dealing with military matters against 1/2 page of Greenery. Real sizzle.

When does one stop voting for European Treaties?

So far, Ireland has gained immeasureably from being part of Europe. Where the strongest local political tradition has balked at any rappochement with our nearest neighbour, Europe provided both a model and a vision for Irish politics. By changing the playing field, it brought Ireland and Britain closer than they have ever being, in the process “solving the Irish problem”, though that has been said prematurely before!

I dislike the idea of a bureaucratic super-state, but I feel that is not necessarily the end. I think small states (the majority) like the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, the Baltic states, Slovenia, the Low Countries, the Balkan states, Cyprus and Malta will learn to group themselves to counter the influences of the giants (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, maybe Poland).

So I am prepared to take a leap in the dark and vote for Lisbon. But my patience with a new “Treaty” every few years is growing thin.

I agree with Maria that people are very attached to the idea that low corporate tax is essential for foreign investment and thus prosperity. Personally I think limiting tax competition is one of the best things the EU could do but it’s not a popular line in Ireland I don’t think. Nothing to do with Lisbon per se, but then Yes appeals to the general virtuosity of the EU aren’t either, strictly speaking.

Ultimately Henry’s point no. 5 is the best and possibly sufficient No argument – substantively Lsibon is OK, but procedurally the whole thing leaves a lot to be desired.

Michael – is it really the case that the EU is “creaking to a halt” under the current rules? I think its current potential is greatly circumscribed by its legitimacy problem (which I think the substance of Lisbon would improve marginally) in terms of democracy, transparency etc deficits.

“explain to me how it is democratic that the future of ~500 million people is effectively shaped by the will of ~2 million Irish voters”

That’s the feckin’ point – it isn’t!

How do you define “feasible”? I mean, the Irish referendum looks like it will, in fact, take place – it seems very feasible to me. What you mean is that it isn’t feasible that all 27 countries would vote yes, isn’t that so?

I agree, but my view is that the EU is not sustainable (feasible, one might say) without the consent of its citizens. Ultimately I think there’s something to be said for bringing things to a head and sorting out where we all stand.

The kind of ambitions federalists (of which I think I am one) have for Europe are probably not viable across the 27, so I say we may need some kind of split between deep and shallow integrationists – countries who broadly share a broadly federalist vision and countries that don’t. The inner core of federalists could agree on a mechanism whereby constitutional changes (which is basically what Treaties are) are put to referendum but only require, say, two thirds of members to approve (plus perhaps a majority of voters) to go through. The “shallow” overall Union would continue on a unanimist basis.

Hi,

I have seen some really good arguments for voting for the Treaty, but only from the No side. I have seen it argued that if it is ratified the abortion ban in Ireland will be overturned and gay marriage will have to be allowed. I am trying to find the blog that argued it — i found it by clicking on a paid ad that said “Find out why abortionists are for the Lisbon Treaty” but I can’t find it any more.

I don’t suppose there’s any chance this is true? I mean, I know it is probably just rabid frothing wingnuttery but I really want it to be true.

I’m very unimpressed by the “no”, as it really does smack of hysteria and flat-Earthism.

Well what a convincing argument that is. Though it does remind me why many people are have a gut-reaction No on things like this: because too many pro-EU people talk and act as if they were the Enlightened Ones and everybody else a dinosaur.

It’s repetitive but seeing as john m has asked directly, my number 1 reason for voting yes (if I had a vote) is also to bring the 3rd pillar under parliamentary oversight. This will have long-reaching effects and curb member states’ ability to policy launder and blame regressive criminal justice policies on “Europe”.

Niamh, I’ve not seen the blogs that say the treaty will bring in gay marriage and abortion. But I’d guess they spring from the charter of rights (see Henry’s comment above).

p o’neill:

One problem has been the FF GOTV operation—which they have motivated by putting pictures of their TDs on the Yes posters. A calculation that FG voters would swallow their irritation and still vote Yes.

My impression is that all the three main parties are at it – Fine Gael has Enda Kenny (party leader) and the five outgoing MEPs on posters urging us to “be at the heart of Europe”.

The prize for opportunism, though, goes to Labour, who have stuck up posters of their local councillors with a small, almost invisible, “VOTE YES TO EUROPE” in the corner. How could voters be cynical about either the Lisbon treaty or politicians in general when faced with that?

“Then the whole concept of representational democracy is “sneaky and bad”.”

To the extent that public officials feel they have to go out of their way to avoid accountability, or feel they have to be misleading or deceptive to get their way, yes.

And furthermore, making changes in the deep substantive process requires a little bit higher bar than just “our public officals buried it and we didn’t look too deep”. This changes in a pretty substantive way how the people and their representatives will be accountable to each other. Having that as an aside doesn’t seem proper.

And you didn’t address the fact that this has essentially already been rejected by the French and Dutch. Doesn’t that change your “1 million Irish” objection a little?

“Well what a convincing argument that is. Though it does remind me why many people are have a gut-reaction No on things like this: because too many pro-EU people talk and act as if they were the Enlightened Ones and everybody else a dinosaur

Obviously you think they say NO in a fit of pique, and not out of conviction

Where does this lead us?

So your view is that nothing should be voted on by the people unless they are willing to stage large scale demonstrations against it even when there is no focus point in time to do so?

That seems odd, but I guess it is self-coherent.

Does anybody know any Yes voters?

…raises hand

(Although an unenthusiastic Yes, largely because of Henry’s fifth point above. A (narrow) defeat might teach our political class a small lesson about involving the public from the beginning.)

De facto, it will be 1 million Irish voters.

Better than no referendum at all, as far I am concerned. I would have favored a European referendum held on the same day in each member states (that allows this mode of consultation). Representative democracy is OK, but is problematic when there are suspicions that the representatives hold very different view from the electorate on one particular issue. This is exactly the case here. Beside, I personally laud a constitution that requires a referendum for constitutional change.

And if the French really felt that this was such a life or death issue, they should have taken to the streets, announced a national strike or elected candidates from the far right or left, who were against it. Instead they elected Sarkozy, a vocal proponent of Lisbon.

For most of us (French), it is not a life or death issue, it is an issue, just like any other. When I vote for someone, I generally agree with some of his positions and disagree with some, that should come to you as no surprise. Still, it is a bit annoying to see the way the French and Dutch referenda are considered, as you would undoubtedly understand in the symmetric eventuality (the side you favored in a referendum wins a decisive victory yet the opposite choice is implemented by the next elected parliament).

EU states appear to be willing to centralise and coordinate their administrative ability to impose burdens on their citizenry, but curiously reluctant to examine harmonisation of the elective legitimation of their own existence and practices around any form of agreed optima.

Actually, the Lisbon Treaty increases the power of both the European parliament (codecision procedure) and the national parliaments (principle of subsidiarity).

Population size is an irrelevancy, voting is unitary as between sovereign states; the mechanism for determining the direction of that vote is a matter for each sovereign state.

I believe that the main reason for the swell of support for the ‘NO’ position is a growing belief that power is being skewed towards a population basis and in favour of large states and that there will be an even greater flow of European Court directed unacceptable social and adverse regulatory and competitive policies hitting small business and industry.

Unfortunately none the larger countries pushing Lisbon have strong democratic traditions and all seem to be biased towards de facto rule by strong ‘efficient’ centralised bureaucracies directed by self selecting political ‘elites’ c.f. centralised candidate selection,list system etc.

It is the fate of all such elites to come to believe that they are smarter, better intentioned and more far-seeing than their predecessors and will thus avoid the usual mistakes of expansionism, over regulation, stagnation, militarism, authoritarianism and civil strife. History says otherwise.

While this was not a great problem for sovereign states in a common trading area it becomes a major problem in a forced political union dominated by such states.

A deliberately incomprehensible treaty signed as blank pages by European politicians afraid of the will of their own people is being advocated by those self same ‘elites’ on the basis of TRUST US.

It is for such reasons that I will be voting NO.

Obviously you think they say NO in a fit of pique, and not out of conviction

No, there are good and bad reasons why people vote No – just as there are for the opposite vote, or indeed for abstention. But I think a lot of people’s gut reaction is to be pleased when people who treat them as morons don’t get what they want. See for instance this BBC report with its ought-to-be-amazing line:

Our correspondent says that many voters seem to have voted No for the simple reason that they did not understand the treaty

No voters – ignorant. Yes voters – no such suggestion.

I’m sure (and I can see in the comments above) that a fair number of Yes voters don’t much like this attitude either. But it’s really widespread and I’m afraid I think it largely consists of a lot of well-off metropolitan people with good education and promising careers supporting things that suit their interest and assuming it’s axiomatic that everybody else should do the same.

Which is, in itself, another sort of ignorance.

But it’s really widespread and I’m afraid I think it largely consists of a lot of well-off metropolitan people with good education and promising careers supporting things that suit their interest and assuming it’s axiomatic that everybody else should do the same. Which is, in itself, another sort of ignorance.

This beautifully describes much of the debate around the evolution of the economic, social and political system in a globalized world.

Henry, how about another post now that the vote is in? Any further thoughts on how the campaign and voting worked, or how they should ideally work? For myself I’m a skeptic on the Lisbon Treaty, but as an American I dwell (on this issue, anyway) in rationally ignorant bliss.