Lisbon: Debate allowed us to see ‘the bigger picture’

There were a lot of people who voted ‘no’ the last time and did so in the belief that either a ‘no’ vote carried no consequences if the referendum was lost or voted ‘no’ for the heck of it, or because things were going a bit sour on the economic front, felt it was OK to lodge a protest vote.

The nuts and bolts of the Treaty provisions were argued throughout the campaign on Lisbon 1, even if the ‘Yes’ side, especially our complacent political class, barely bothered to respond to ‘No’ arguments, or to distinguish between what were genuine issues of concern amongst the public as opposed to ‘crank’ interpretations and conspiracy theories, or indeed, to campaign at all. Added to which, I think, it is universally agreed that the Referendum Commission did a poor job in seeking to explain the Treaty and what it was about to the public.

What was different in this campaign was that the key concern of many ‘no’ voters – the loss of a Commissioner – was sorted. Many of the more lunatic speculations about the effect of the Treaty on our most cherished values were exposed for what they were. The workers’ rights argument was the main argument likely to gain traction, but the ‘No’ side overplayed their hand on that issue, especially with that minimum wage of €1.84 nonsense. As an argument it didn’t stick except with those who were committed to a ‘No’ vote anyway.

This time around too, the Referendum Commission has done a splendid job in explaining the Treaty and its provisions. A lethargic (and unpopular) political class has been largely side-lined by civic groups slugging it out against a similar array of civic groups on the ‘No’ side, except there are more sluggers and they were more impressive in their credentials on the ‘Yes’ than on the ‘No’side. That said, it’s a pity that some of the main protagonists proved incapable of showing respect for one another; but in political campaigns where there are strong opinions on every side of the argument human nature is bound to show its uglier face at some point or other.

Since the facts of the Treaty’s provisions were well known, and any citizen who didn’t know but wanted to know had access to those facts via numerous websites, advertising campaigns and distributed literature, and since the central concern (the Commissionership) had been resolved by a vote of the European Council earlier this summer, the key issue that remained was the consequences of ‘yes ‘ or ‘no’, especially for ourselves as well as for the rest of Europe.

It is those voters, especially among the farmers, fishermen, women, supporters of the Labour Party and the Green Party, and certain classes of young voters, who voted ‘no’ the last time who needed to be convinced that there are negative consequences for Ireland and for the EU itself, if they vote ‘no’ a second time. Curiously, the debate in that way has become more focused on the Treaty as a platform for the future direction of the EU, as well as redefining our own relationship with Europe, than was ever the case during the referendum on Lisbon 1. A debate that centred only on interpretations of particular Treaty provisions, would have amounted to little more than a rehash of Lisbon 1, and missed out on that bigger picture.

Just how important that ‘bigger picture’ may turn out to be will become apparent in the months ahead, particularly in relation to the UK. David Cameron is on record as saying that he will hold a referendum if Ireland votes no, if and when he become the UK prime minister following next year’s general election. The referendum would seek to undo the UK’s ratification of Lisbon. In effect, it would be a referendum on UK withdrawal from Europe and its practical impact would be the beginning of the end for the EU as we know it, and most liekly, an accelerated drive to that two tier Europe that would relgate small countries, like ourselves, into the second division. If Ireland votes ‘Yes’ and, if in due course the latest legal action by Czech anti-Eu activists fails – a liekly outcome since a similar case in Germany has already failed – Cameron has been less equivocal on his referendum plans, stating that he would have to consider the situation as it will stand at that time, if every other member state has ratified the Treaty when he takes up residence in No.10.

A fair summation of all this is that a ‘No’ vote is a vote for the Tories’ agenda to dismantle Europe; while a resounding ‘yes ‘ vote might discourage Cameron from that course.

We’ll know by midday on Saturday if the ‘Yes’ campaign has been effective in turning those uncommitted ‘no’ voters from last time around and asking them to adopt a different perspective on what’s at issue for us and the rest of the EU in this second referendum on Lisbon.

Obviously, I personally hope it will be successful. Personally, also, I’m glad, one way or another, that it’s over and I can get back to concentrating on what I should be doing in my own time!