Head over to our T
The Government’s EU Problem: No Referendum = Credibility loss, possibly fatal
Read more about: Uncategorized 
This Government would probably gleefully order the ritual sacrifice of half a dozen of its junior Ministers at the foot of the Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park if it thought such slaughter might avoid having to hold a referendum on the new intergovernmental Treaty.
Right now there is a different ritual underway. The same civil servants from the Attorney General’s office who, according to Europe Minister Lucinda Creighton, were part of Ireland’s negotiating team in Brussels on the Treaty, will be putting in their tuppence worth of advice to the Attorney General, to whom the Cabinet has now referred the question as to whether or not a referendum is required. The AG will be under ‘no pressure’ in coming to her decision, according to the Taosieach. It’s also a fact that the most the AG can do is advise the government of the day. It is ultimately their decision as to what happens, in light of any advice that is offered.
Then again, on the face of it, the Government has done as much as it can to ensure that the wording of the Treaty will not trigger a legal requirement for a referendum.
According to a scoop in the Irish Times, the Irish officials negotiating the final Treaty text were mandated to ensure that the Treaty wording would not necessitate a referendum in Ireland. The paper quoted an unnamed official. The Taoiseach told the Dail the following morning that he does not deal with comments in newspapers made by unnamed officials, which is a bit rich considering the number of inspired leaks from within the government regularly attributed to ‘sources close to the government’, or to some minister or other that the rest of the world is supposed to take seriously.
The Government does not want a referendum. Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore said as much at a meeting of the Dail Foreign Affairs Committee a couple of weeks ago. Transport Minister, Leo Varadkar, added fuel to the fire when he declared earlier this week that referendums are not necessarily the best way to make complex decisions (true); are not even especially democratic within a system of representative politics ( arguable); and that any referendum on this Treaty would be as much about septic tanks and/or rivalries between the main opposition factions (definite) than the subject matter of the Treaty itself. Both of these esteemed members of our Government were speaking well before any final text had been agreed in Brussels, never mind signed off by 25 of the 27 Eu Governments.
The Government has every right, too, to be concerned that a referendum will not deliver a positive result. Last Sunday’s Red C opinion poll for the Sunday Business Post records 72% in favour of a referendum but only a marginal majority in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. It’s a general rule of thumb that in any referendum on a contentious issue, a two thirds majority in favour is required at the outset of the campaign if there is to be any chance of the measure being carried. On the Red C figures, the referendum would not have a prayer.
The Treaty is contentious. Fianna Fail has come out in favour of a referendum as well as advocating a vigorous public information campaign by the Government on what the Treaty means for this country and what it will mean to our democracy, and control of our own economic destiny, over the long term. It is taken as read that Sinn Fein will oppose ratification of this Treaty, whether the Government proceed through the parliamentary route of legislation or via a referendum of the people. And, no doubt, there will be all sorts tripping over one another down in the Four Courts to launch constitutional actions to force a referendum should the Government stick with the legislative option.
But there is even more fun in store for us this time around. The Independents in the Dail are reported to be looking at using Article 27 of the Constitution to force a referendum on any Government sponsored legislation to ratify this Treaty. To do that, they will need one third of Dail members. As it stands, the opposition has 52 deputies against the Coalition’s 109, leaving aside the one Fine Gael TD, Denis Naughten, and two Labour, Tommy Broughan and Patrick Nulty, who have lost the parliamentary party whip. There’s no guarantee that Broughan, Nulty or Neachtain would line up with the rest of the Opposition to make up the numbers for an Article 27 plea. Even at that, one or more further defections from the government ranks would be required.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the one third barrier is crossed. The initiative then passes to the Seanad where a majority of all Senators must agree or it’s a lost cause. Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein have 17 Senators between them. There are 13 ‘Independents’, not all of whom could be relied upon to vote against the Government. But theoretically, with 30 votes, only one defection would be needed from the Govenment ranks to deliver the required Senate majority.
More fun lies in store when the matter gets to Aras an Uachtarain, as the whole thing stops dead in its tracks unless President Michael D. Higgins accepts the motion of the Dail and Seanad. Even after all that, this would not be an ‘ordinary’ referendum as we know and love them. A further constitutional provision kicks in, a subsection of Article 47, requiring that one third of all the electorate must vote ‘No’ for the Government’s proposed legislation to be defeated. On a high overall turnout of about 70%, this suggests a 60% ‘No’ vote would be the least required to meet that threshold.
And hold on; it’s not even finished at that stage. The Government could then dissolve the Dail and call a general election. Assuming the same parties won that election, they could settle the matter finally with a majority Dail vote.
Hardly surprising, then, that Article 27 has never been utilised since the 1937 Constitution came into effect.
From the Government’s perspective, the easiest thing would be to bow to the inevitable and concede to a referendum long before any such process gathers political momentum. For Senators, there’s the chance to demonstrate that the Seanad retains relevance within our democracy and should not be abolished as Enda Kenny has pledged. Our new President, Michael D Higgins, would be faced with a lonely decision, though based on his track record of personal and political integrity and his commitment to act in the best interests of the people, it should not be a difficult decision for him.
The real losers here may be the Government, whatever way they turn. They might do better to go for a referendum option and fight their corner than politically brazening it out and hiding behind the Attorney General’s legal advice. The issue is not whether a referendum is legally required to ratify this instrument; a referendum on the Treaty is now a political demand. Tough it out against all challenges, including the Article 27 process, and they just might get away with it, given the strength of their parliamentary majority, the lack of any half-way attractive alternative government on offer and the propensity of the electorate to forget what happened last week never mind within a timeframe of three years ago which is the old territory of the distant past where this Treaty would belong by the time the next general election comes into view. Or so they may reckon.
Except that this Treaty is not about some fluffy broken election promises. It goes to the heart of Ireland democratic future. People need to be informed about what it means and what are its implications for the future. The public want to debate what’s in the best interests, of what may be the least bad option in respect of the decisions that have to be made and which we, as citizens, want to have a say. It’s a simple equation in political terms: no referendum = loss of credibility. Probably fatal too, over the long haul.
Surely the best option now for the govt is that a referendum is called via Article 27, and then the turnout is too low to actually have the referendum be carried.
The decision then has democratic legitimacy, Indos and SF are happy because they got their referendum, FG and FF are happy because they got the result they wanted, Labour is happy because Michael D looks like a saviour of democracy.
Eoin,
If the Government was perceived as resisting ‘the will of the people’ to have a say via referendum, then you could lay a bet on a very high turnout indeed. What’s more, the septic tankers, the no-water-chargers, the anti-property tax brigade and so on are only waiting for the opportunity to deliver a kicking.
Unless the Government can unveil a deal on the Irish banking debt problem in the weeks to come – which many had hoped for as a ‘quid pro quo’ for Irish assent to the fiscal straitjacket which this Treaty will impose in perpetuity – and on which the Toaiseach and his Ministers have manifestly failed to demonstrate any progress whatsoever over the past ten months, people may need to think long and hard about whether the package on offer in this Treaty is in the best interests of the country.
Suppose there is a referendum (very likely) and there is a NO vote , does that mean we are off to the markets looking for money to pay the wages and social welfare???? and we balance the budget in one year.
Suppose there is a yes vote and in a few years the whole thing is found to be unworkable(very likely)how to we get it out of the constitution???
By all means call very loudly for a referendum and hope it is our ace in getting a write down but pray very hard that there is no referndum.
I feel we should be going further than the EU for our own domestic reasons out of free choice – a constitutional bar on national indebtedness. Not a debt brake or a deficit limit but a commitment to becoming a creditor state once we’ve worked through our current difficulties. Because we want to.
Betty,
As I understand it, a ‘No’ vote that would prevent ratification of this treaty by our Government does not affect Ireland’s current arrangements with the Troika. It does mean that Ireland would not be able to access bailout funding from the ESM – the 500bn euro pot that will be established to replace the ESFS (the fund Ireland is accessing at the moment). So if we voted ‘No’ nothing would happen to the present arrangements or in the immediate term. However, if Ireland needed a new loans package on the expiry of the current one because it was unable to return to the markets, then we’d be in a spot of bother alright.
Now the Government insist that Ireland will be able to return to the markets on time and there will be no requirement for a second bailout – only Leo Varadkar has made any public statements casting doubt about this assumption and one imagines he was told to ‘shut up’ double quick. In support of its ‘no need’ thesis, the Government points to the ‘successful’ NTMA recent foray into the market where 5bn or so euro of existing short term debt was successfully traded for extension at a reasonable interest rate of less than 6%. However, many economists have accused the Government and the NTMA of engaging in a ‘spin’ exercise over this ‘return to the markets’ and allege that the main buyers of the government bonds were not the ‘markets’ in any international sense, but our own dead-broke banks who donned the ‘green jersey’ for the day. This morning, it is reported that the Central Bank is predicting Ireland will enter recession again next year.
Looking at all this as an ordinary person, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that neither the Government nor the various expert groups have a clue what’s really going on and could not predict anything about our future prospects, with any assurance, beyond next week.
If the Government brings this forward as a ‘normal’ referendum, and we all vote ‘Yes’, then there’s no great problem as far as I understand it. The issue in the referendum would be specific to this particular intergovernmental treaty and centred on the government ceding sovereignty in excess of what the Constitution allows. There’ll be lots of argument around this, I expect. Some legal experts have already said they believe there has to be a referendum whereas various government spokesperson point to a range of international treaties that Ireland has signed up to (UN Coventions and the like) without triggering a requirement for a referendum.
I haven’t made up my own mind, as yet, as to which way I would vote in any referendum on this intergovernmental treaty. I’m not clear on what the issues and full implications of its precise measures are going to be for this country, and our people, over the medium to long term and I want to know more about those aspects before I can make up my own mind. The blasts of rhetoric from political sources who have already decided that whatever is proposed they will be ‘agin’ it anyway, and likewise from government spokespersons pooh-poohing the need for any referendum are not helpful,to say the least of it. But even if it turns out that there is no strict legal requirement for a referendum on this intergovernmental treaty, I’m not sure that takes away from the political case for a referendum. There are huge issues involved here about the route we are taking out of our difficulties and the path this treaty will set us on over the medium term future. They require the most thorough public debate in which all of us should be engaged, especially after what we’ve gone through over the past five years and what we may be facing over the next five. As for what the present government wants, or doesn’t want, tough on them!
HCR,
You’re advocating a rapid route back to the stone age. Governments must have the flexibility to borrow for all sorts of productive purposes, for capital projects as well economic stimulus as and when required.
Veronica,
That’s avery defeatist attitude, IMO. Us Irish can lead: we don’t always have to be the ‘original sin’ helpless, dependant on outside circumstances.
What is our present prospect? Keep borrowing more (sorry, I mean get bailouts) in order to increase our debt and give what we borrow back with exrbitant interest to the Germans and the French who originally were only to willing to lend money to people who saw the future in building ghost estates in the middle of nowhere as a viable economic policy.
This is a brilliant plan from the EU point of view but there can be only one end to that road for Ireland – economic slavery.
The only sensible option from our point of view is to make people wealthy enough to pay our way without borrowing from external sources. We can do this in either of two ways. Double our wages in €uro or exit the €uro denominate our debt in new Punts and rapidly inflate the new Punt.
Eddie,
Bloomberg and the IMF appear to agree with you on the merits of doubling pay – at least for public servants and politicians.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-25/why-singapore-has-the-cleanest-government-money-can-buy-view.html
This view wouldn’t currently find favour with the Sindo, which seems to favour yet more pay cuts for public servants in preference to efficiency improvements and headcount reductions.
But can the INM stable preach on financial management? I think not, the company having ended up unable to repay its bondholders, leading to ruinous dilution of shareholder value, wealth destruction to individual investors, bondholders, and many peoples’ pension funds, a humiliating debt-for-equity swap, and the marginalising of Tony O’Reilly from the company he’d dominated for decades.
HCR,
It’s invidious to single out any one newspaper group in this way. The newspaper industry in Ireland is in deep trouble. The Irish Times is reported to be building up unsustainable losses on a monthly basis; INM has its own problems including internal power struggles; as for local newspapers and the broadcasting sector… I won’t even go there. There are several factors contributing to the current maliase not least of which is the loss of advertising revenue, mainly due to the country’s economic collapse. But the newspaper industry all over the western world is in dire straits – the Guardian, the New York Times among them – for one very simple reason: technology has funadmentally changed the way in which people access ‘news’ and the traditional media are having difficulties adjusting to this new reality. This is a major problem, in view of the importance of the traditional news media to democracy but nobody knows who amongst those media organisations will be left standing in the final shakeout or what the new traditional media will look like when it’s all over.
Veronica,
All very fair comment, but INM titles have appeared to peddle a particular line directed against public servants.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/brendan-oconnor-cut-public-sector-wages-not-staff-3010244.html
INM isn’t the only O’Reilly company whose financial engineering has undone it, to the cost of many in this economy and farther afield., but as long as the INM titles continue under the control of the old management, editorial policy strongly risks being perceived as vindictive, and public servants perceive themselves as being singled out for unjust disparagement.
HCR,
This thread is about the EU Compact Treaty, the prospect of a referendum and the politics of that. There will be other threads about the state of the Irish media – coming up very shortly – on which there will be ample opportunity for people to comment on perceptions of media bias in respect of certain groups in society or whatever. But for the moment, could you please stick with the topic in hand? Otherwise, you might be rightly fingered for trolling!
Veronica,
Surely a timely reminder of Leo Varadkar’s point that ‘By and large, referendum campaigns are never about what they are supposed to be about’.
Seriously though, my response to Eddie’s familiar exhortation for a doubling of wages was a conversational response to Eddie’s comment of Feb 5th, and was relevant and referenced.
My earlier comments of Feb 2nd and 4th relate more directly to your post, which, I might add, is, in my opinion, speculative and premature. However, as with all your inputs here, I enjoyed reading it and sharing my thoughts.
HCR,
The piece is hardly speculative – Dail Independents have indicated that they intend to pursue the Art 27 route. Just how far they will get is another day’s work and, as indicated in the piece, the whole process is so complicated and cumbersome and strewn with pitfalls at every stage it’s hardly surprising it’s never been used.
What’s interesting, in my view, is that Independents in the Dail feel they are strong enough to even consider going down this route. Independent deputies have traditionally either been tied to the government of the day in some way, exiles drummed out of their own parties for one reason or another, or too few in number, or of such disparate ideological allegiance that there’s no possibility of them acting as a cohesive group.
The second question is whether or not a referendum on the compact treaty is politicially desirable, irrespective of the fact that the government don’t want one for reasons that are understandable. It’s hardly premature to ask that question, since it’s already become a hot topic of political debate and is likely to remain so.
And yes, I always enjoy reading your comments as well!
Veronica,
I say premature as we haven’t yet had a determination as to whether a referendum is, in the opinion of the AG, required.
Article 27 appears on a quick reading to appply only in the case of Bills which have not been passed by the Seanad. With a healthy government majority in both Houses, that seems unlikely.
Unfortunately I fear a referendum would be a purely academic exercise. According to Max Keiser “Ireland is toast”. That we should be paying money we do not owe to people we have not met without getting anything in return and without a hue and cry from the Comptroller and Auditor General about lack of acountability and value for money has brought our state aparatus to the point of farce. Which means that, if those who have perpetrated this attrocity on the people of Ireland are allowed to win the day, a referendum would be as meaningless as the circus our Government has now become.
Look at Greece!!!
Unfortunately I fear a referendum would http://www.vendreshox.com/nike-shox-nz-c-5.html be a purely academic exercise. According to Max Keiser “Ireland is toast”. That we should be paying money we do not owe to people we have not met without getting anything in return and without a hue and cry from the Comptroller and Auditor General about lack of acountability and value for money has brought our state aparatus to the point of farce. Which means that, if those who have perpetrated this attrocity on the people of Ireland are allowed to win the day, a referendum would be as meaningless as the circus our Government has now become.
Look at Greece!!!