One underlying issue is that the most powerful person in the European Union apparatus now is not within the new Lisbon positions but the competition commissioner Neelie Kroes, who has been extracting a steep price under state aid rules for any bank feeding at the public trough.  And she won’t be impressed if Anglo shows up with a fairy tale plan for how it can find new things to do in the post-bubble Irish economy.   Incidentally, I suspect that as much as the salary cap, Mrs Kroes was an issue in why AIB couldn’t find an outside CEO.  That person would be coming in to head up a bank that has its own set of Commission conditions coming next year.  The job of the CEO might be to break it up.

EU Commission Press Release: Eurobarometer results: Nearly 1 in 4 voted yes to Lisbon for economic reasons

Other key finding of the Flash Eurobarometer 284 survey

Outcome: rather high turnout (59%), 67.1% votes in favour.

Why people voted “Yes”:

• • They considered the Treaty to be in Ireland’s best interest (economically, politically, diplomatically) – total of 77%

Why people voted “No”:

• • They believed the Treaty was a threat to Irish sovereignty and neutrality (23%)
  • They distrusted politicians (10%)

Why people did not vote:

• • They were too busy (46%)
  • They were turned off by the campaigns (40%)

Why people changed their votes to “Yes” in 2009 from “No” or abstention in 2008:

• • The support basis of the Treaty expanded mainly due to increased information and communication (29%); this made citizens feel more engaged in the debate on the Treaty (21%)
  • The economic crisis and recession illustrated the Economic importance of Europe (25%)

Where did people obtain information about the Treaty:

• • Channels: television, newspapers and the radio were most popular (over 39% each)
  • Sources: people relied on the Irish government, family and acquaintances, political parties and the Referendum Commission for information about the Treaty (over 24% each)

Did the information campaigns work?

• • Clear evidence: in 2008, 67% of the respondents found the “No” campaign to be most convincing, while in 2009 the same percentage found the “Yes” campaign to be most convincing

Sociodemographic profile of voters:

• • Typical “Yes” voter: male, over 55, with over 20 years of education, from a metropolitan area, or self-employed
  • Typical “No” voter: female, between 18 and 24, still in education, from a rural area, or a manual worker

Possible lessons to be learned:

• • Lack of (proper) information empowered the “No” campaign and lead to rejection
  • More information and debate enlarged the support basis of the Treaty
  • The economic crisis emphasized the importance of EU integration and support

The survey was undertaken by Gallup and in the field between the 3-7 October 2009. A sample of 2000 random Irish voters above the age of 18 were interviewed by telephone for their opinions on the question in matter.

Interstingly they do a bit of research on the role of the internet in informing people about the issues during the campaign, it seems that it was prevalent during August – when many other media weren’t focussing on Lisbon while the closer things got (the left column) the more established media came to the fore.

“In the immediate future, I will be working with the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso and with An Taoiseach Brian Cowen T.D. on the issue of my future responsibilities and portfolio allocation within the European Commission,” she said. “Secondly, I will have to prepare comprehensively for a ratification hearing that will then take place within the European Parliament.”

Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn served as Minister for European Affairs from 1987 – 1991, during which time she worked closely with the European Parliament in 1990 when Ireland held the Presidency of the European Union. During the past nine years she has been a member of the European Court of Auditors, which is the EU institution established to carry out the audit of EU finances. As the EU’s external auditor it contributes to improving EU financial management and acts as the independent guardian of the financial interests of the citizens of the Union. The court promotes accountability and transparency and assists the European Parliament and the Council in overseeing the implementation of the EU budget.

“The European Union operates most effectively when the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council of Ministers are all working together in a spirit of determination and co-operation to achieve common political, economic and social objectives,” she pointed out. “The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty allows reform of internal decision making procedures so that new laws can be brought forward in a more structured, efficient and co-ordinated way. As a result, the EU can now address key political problems within Europe and around the world in a more coherent and forthright way. I hope to contribute to making the Union more effective for all of its citizens” she said.

• The Irish government removes legislation that made for equal airtime for both sides of the debate.
• The Irish government enters into a contract with a PR firm to handle publicity for the “Yes” campaign without going through the required public tender process.
• “No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
• Bill Cullen can just refuse to disclose financial details of his campaign in support of a “Yes” vote. Remember, Declan Ganley got raked over hot coals on his campaigns finances…
• Green party suggest postponing vote on NAMA until after Lisbon referendum
• Sinn Fein is still the “Yes” campaigners strongest argument.
• Intel can make public statements and run a campaign promoting a “Yes” vote without accusations of it “not being a legitimate political party”.
• And the biggest fact: we already voted on this and it hasn’t changed. NO MEANS NO

I read Saturday’s Irish Times, it has one Lisbon article on page 8. Today’s Sunday Business Post has nothing. Looking at their website, The Sunday Times has a piece about the spending involved from private groups – not the politics though. The Tribune has something about Pat Cox being set for a big job if Lisbon passes, again, nothing actually about the vote on the Treaty. I haven’t seen the Sindo but a site search brings up zilch.

It’s just over a month before polling day, where are all the politicians (and subsequent coverage)?

I also read this post from Deaglan DeBreadan on the Irish Times’s Politics blog. Quoting someone in Leinster House, he wrote…

“Lisbon is a dead duck, a goner, not a hope in hell”. I protested that, surely the people would vote Yes out of sheer naked fear of making the economic situation even worse.

Nope, I was told by a highly-experienced (and pro-EU) Fianna Fáil backbencher. The farmers are voting against en bloc and don’t pay any attention to what their leaders are saying. (I should point out that the executive council of the Irish Farmers’ Association has voted unanimously to recommend a Yes to Lisbon.)

But surely the possibility of negative economic results will deter people from voting No a second time, I suggested? Another TD, from the Labour side, said he believed there was a “death-wish” among the electorate.

Interesting, I’m sure you’ll agree. What are we to make of the source’s assertion?

The problem with Lisbon for the media is the Treaty’s amazing abilities to get people to ignore it. It’s boring. Very boring. It was boring first time round and now it has reared its ugly head again so the boredom can be repeated. The arguements have been had time and again, people don’t really want to hear them again. The media throws it a bone now and then but avoids anything in depth, it can’t really anyway, it was all done last time ’round.

Politicians have to deal with that and a multitude of other problems. People don’t like them, they’re not popular, Fianna Fáil TDs especially risk doing more harm than good when speaking on the Treaty. Rural TDs are dealing with constituents over the REPs scheme, hospital services, jobs cuts and the continuing retoric from ‘D4 economists’. Of course, there’s also the proposed cuts in social welfare, the constant protests. NAMA. The Commission on Taxation Report (which the Union rep didn’t sign). The Unions and the crumbling social partnership. The continuing aftershocks from An Bord Snip. The Programme for Government. Backbenchers. The Greens’ members. The Opposition. Oh, and the budget trundling towards Leinster House from the horizon on course to smash into the coaltion.

In short, Lisbon is low on the “to-do list” so politicians are leaving it on the back burner. When politicians do that, the media have little option but to do the same, or at the very least, leave it to the op-ed pages. The question is, with that happening, could the establishment be in for another shock?

The No vote came out last time, the Yes vote didn’t. Post-Ganley it’s hard to tell what will happen the No side, but it’s equally hard to tell post-dawn-of-economic-crisis if the Yes vote will show up. I think this one will be a close run thing. Still going with Yes, but it’ll be nothing more than 60/40…

The ‘no’ side has a new group aswell which will likely cause more hassle for Padraig Walshe and the IFA than the wider population, Farmers for No will be chaired byJames Reynolds but there is no sign of Raymond O Malley (to the disappointment of all here in Irishelection.com HQ).

The Intel move will probably be slated as trying to buy a yes vote and in some senses that is exactly what it is but more importantly that was precisely part of the Libertas effort to get a no vote last time out. Whether it is correct that a democratic campaign is as dependent on money and spend as it is on rhetoric and debate is a point for a later stage in the campaign. The emergence of Intel and the multinationals as an overt political force will make it much more interesting as we now have a couple of groups that fall outside the usual political and politico-based formats.

The Intel move still undersores that the political class remain on holiday while both sides are mobilising to get the narrative out there. Will we see any major moves from our politicians in advance of the Dail’s resumption (and the debate on NAMA that might well turn the entire Lisbon debate on its head) or in the wake of their think-in? Quite possibly not and while it is widely suggested their departure from the field is no harm, perhaps their utter abandonment of the field to private groups is no help either? (Just thinking out loud)

Either way these groups will add colour, much needed perspective and perhaps help to forge a connection between the debate and the as-yet-disinterested electorate.

With the blurb coming from the “yes-camp” and the very regretful stepping back by Declan Ganley (at least he kept his promise) one might think that it is the Irish “No to Lisbon” campaigners against the EU. Fortunately that isn’t true. In the run-up to the recent EU elections I got talking on Twitter with the top candidate for Libertas in the Netherlands; Eline van den Broek. She pleasantly surprised me by her openness and her excellent use of social media to communicate her position to potential voters. Eline uses Twitter, Hyves, Facebook and probably more social media networks I don’t know of.

So while thinking of a good topic to write on regards the 2nd Lisbon referendum I thought it might be interesting to ask Eline a few questions on this topic. Following are her answer to a number of questions I asked her recently; In my opinion, it illustrates her insight on this topic and her ongoing work to reject the Lisbon treaty.

• What is your current position in Dutch & European politics: It’s simply that of an interested spectator. I have in the years previous to becoming a Libertas candidate always been hands-on involved with politics. In The Hague as well as Brussels. But always as an opinion-maker. The advantage of that position is that one is not subject to party politics or the “trend of the day”. I have, as a member of various think-tanks and as political advisor, always put my own opinion and ideology first. And I’ve kept on subject and to the point. This is something that is hard for a lot of politicians. A good and relevant political agenda does not always win the hearts & minds of voters. Now, since I  unfortunately did not make it into the European Parliament with Libertas, I am again active as an opinion-maker. I’m writing reports & opinion pieces on health-care (which is my area of expertise) for US based think-tanks.  I’m currently in Curacao, where I am living for the moment, writing articles on the political relationship between the government in The Hague and the former Dutch colonies. And last but not least I am still getting involved with the Lisbon Treaty on a daily basis. I will support anything that can stop this undemocratic monstrosity from being ratified.  I am currently researching, together with a number of Dutch lawyers, to what extent the Lisbon Treaty infringes on peoples basic human rights. We hope to find a legal basis, just as in Germany’s Constitutional Court, to show that “Lisbon” has been pushed through in an undemocratic fashion. Against the will of the Dutch people (and unfortunately, we don’t have a constitutional court to “test” the Treaty). That cannot be allowed. I wake up with this thought and it’s the last on my mind when I go to sleep at night. The battle isn’t over, no matter what some people might say…

• What moved you to campaign for a seat in the European Parliament: I wasn’t really interested in a seat in the EU Parliament perse. I was looking for a group of people who, just like me, thought that the EU should  be organised in a more democratic manner. When I heard that there was such a group of people and that they were organised in Libertas I immediately became enthusiastic. So enthusiastic that i immediately took a plane to Brussels from Curacao where I had recently moved to together with my husband. I decided that if there was a pan-European party who was going to fight the established political “elite” in Brussels I wanted to be part of that!

• Are you still a Libertas candidate & what does the future for spell for Libertas on both Dutch & European level: I am no longer a Libertas candidate as the European Parliamentary elections are over. We took our losses. But as you always see in politics: “you win some and you lose some”. However in the case of Libertas it is the reverse: “we lose some and we win some”. I am not sure what the immediate future will bring but I do know that in the next European elections there will be another pan-European party running with as it’s primary goal to make the EU more democratic. Which means: get rid of the political elite in their cosy positions. It should be the people of Europe who rule Europe.

• What are your three main objections to the Lisbon Treaty: First and foremost; my primary reason for organising the “no to Lisbon” campaign in the Netherlands was the loss of a veto. The veto might “slow down the political decision making process” but in the EU in it’s current state, with 27 member states it is of a vital importance. 27 countries with 27 cultures & 27 values. Not 4 or 5!  If swift political decision making was the primary goal than maybe the EU shouldn’t have expanded. Secondly: The EU was originally founded ro promote economical cooperation. Recent history has shown us that the original “targets”: freedom of goods, services, people & capital, has only partially been realised. There is, for example, the “services directive”, initiated by the Dutch commissioner for Internal Markets (Frits Bolkenstein), which was very harshly rejected by the European Parliament. National interest were obviously more important that European interests. With that in mind I can only conclude that Europe is not ready for political unity. The EU needs to show that it can achieve 27 member states to work together in economic areas. Only then do I, as an European citizen, have faith that they can work together as a political entity. Last but not least: the fact that the Europeans did not get to decide if this “constitution under a different name” was allowed to be ratified. A treaty that will have such far reaching effects on people in their day-to-day lives and on the powers of the national parliaments should first be ratified by ALL European citizens. Only then can I accept that such a  far reaching agreement has sufficient democratic grounds for it’s existence.

• What is your opinion on the fast that most European citizens never got an opportunity to vote on the Lisbon treaty?: I think I covered that in the above answer already. I would like to add that what happened shows complete disregard for the opinion of the people of the Netherlands. 62% of the Dutch citizens said “NO” to an European constitution in 2005. So what does the Dutch government do? It goes in cahoots with Brussels to word some sentences different, gives the agreement a different name (the Lisbon Treaty) and then tells the Dutch people that there is no need for a referendum! All because it is now a “completely different agreement” which has “absolutely no constitutional character”. I do not know what their definition of a constitution is, but in my definition it is indeed a constitution. And so the Dutch people should be allowed to vote on it, even if the ladies & gentlemen politicians in the Hague do not like the outcome. No means No! And the Irish people now have the chance to show this!

• The Irish government has decided to run a 2nd referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because they didn’t agree with the outcome of the first referendum. What is your opinion on this?: Haha, I only noticed that question now. I think I’ve covered my position on this in my previous answer.

• The Irish government has received certain “legally binding guarantees” from the EU government with regards to it’’s autonomy on decisions pertaining taxation, abortion and defense issues. Do you consider these guarantees to be legally binding and if so why?: Of course those guarantees are NOT legally binding! They’re just sweeteners. There is now legal basis for these promises because the treaty itself removes that basis (subsidiarity & proportionality). The Irish people have only one way to guarantee their autonomy in areas such as taxation, abortion and defense and that is by voting NO to the Lisbon Treaty! If it will be helpful for me to come to Ireland and explain this in more detail I will do so! On October 2nd the Irish people will have the future of Europe in their hands. YES for a dictatorial rule or NO for a Europe with a future for Europeans. A democratic Europe that we and our children will all benefit from.

However the problem posed by our politicians is what I wanted to write this short post on. For it is one of the few politicians that Irish people tend to listen to (not out of awe, but becuase he doesn’t appear to mind being blunt) is Charlie McCreevy. Our erstwhile commissioner will probably be returning to Ireland shortly after the Lisbon referendum. He is also one of those voices that the European establishment fear could utterly destabilise their (wrong-headed) strategy for winning Lisbon II.

The current phase of the campaign is to highlight just how silly we all were to vote no. The Irish people need to be made feel like eejits for even contemplating moving away from Europe – the recession has given us a firm shake and our political leaders’ job is to hammer home the shame. That strategy you don’t need to be a genius to work out, is a little bit of a high-wire act. There are worries being voiced internally that the campaign by the yes side is following the pattern of the last time and rather than getting down and talking at an individual level, the wonks and politicians are busy rubbishing the no side while failing to target their campaign effectively. There is time to save it but ‘grassroots movements’ should have been active under the radar since last February / March.

Of course that is wishful thinking on the part of these sources but there is truth to the idea that it would have been much better for the yes side to get discussing, get positive and do it below the radar rather than grandstanding. And McCreevy is why.

Pat Cox’s speech was dedicated to rebutting McCreevy’s assertion – which is utterly plausible – that were the Lisbon Treaty put to the vote Europe-wide it might well have been defeated by anti-EU sentiment across the continent. Perhaps not by 95% but possible nonetheless.

McCreevy was the man who last time out admitted he didn’t read the Lisbon Treaty, rubbished the idea that it was intelligible and undermined the yes campaign’s platform. That said he did not have to work hard to do it, the campaign was premised on brow beating people into accepting Europe in the space of a few weeks – not much thought or effort given by our political class (wrapped up in the demise of B Ahern) to forging a platform early on, setting the narrative and convincing people. McCreevy knew the electorate felt bolshie and taken for granted and he had the streak of contrariness to tap into it.

Ignorance is a big issue here – not actual but perceived. The electorate perceived they had failed to grasp the Lisbon Treaty, the Yes side failed to disabuse them of this perception and the legitimacy of voting no (out of ignorance) was followed through. McCreevy facilitated that and many wonder what his own position would be if he were unencumbered with the Commissioner’s position.

The Yes side this time around are setting their stall out in a way that could fall foul of a similar outing from a leading political figure. People are not any the wiser – little effort had been made to build stocks of knowledge (again perceived or actual) and trust between voters and the yes side. Instead we have speeches aimed at policing the political class – no one must step out of line.

The likes of McCreevy have not been out since the last referendum making the case for Europe. Small pockets of public life have been trying but the ground has not been laid (much to the annoyance of some in the pro-Europe camp who feel a campaign must a) talk to real people not policy wonks and b) not beat people around the head for voting no the last time). Cox’s speech yesterday suggests this may be deja vu all over again.

That will be the big issue ahead for the Yes campaign, the draw of internal policing versus the need to engage voters, communicate with them and attempt to overturn the defeat from last time. McCreevy will not be leading the ‘no’ side but he doesnt have to. His blunt honesty will emerge again but it is within the yes side that the kernel for another rejection lies.

There is no (real) need to expand the powers of the EU government and limit those of the individual national governments.

Now nothing in the EU limits the work of the national governments. Nothing in Europe can be done without our Minister raising his or her arm at that meeting in Brussels and agreeing to it.

On the issue of the voting in the Ministers meetings, in 2007 the Council made 508 decisions on EU regulations. Of those 425 could have been taken under the Qualified Majority Voting procedure, but only 37 were. This speaks volumes on how the EU works. It works by consensus among the member states. Lisbon won’t change that.

What the Treaty actual does is increase and define is the areas that the EU can take actions in with the agreement of the Member states and the European Parliament. There are 25 areas in which the EU can play a role. Of those only five are exclusive powers of the EU. That means in most areas national governments and parliaments have most of the powers. The five areas are: customs union, the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, monetary policy for the member states whose currency is the euro, the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy and lastly, common commercial policy. Even in those five areas though, it is the ministers responsible who are agreeing to the laws at the EU level, Europe is not imposing them on us.

The Treaty will also give an enhanced role to national parliaments which in some countries play a strong role (Denmark) and in others not so strong (Germany, UK). Under this procedure, our TDs and Senators will be able to voice concerns about proposed regulations and have them changed or abandoned. This gives an additional way for our politicians to influence Europe.

Also under the Treaty of Lisbon we will have a direct input into the EU. Under the Treaty a citizens initiative procedure will be brought in. This means that if an initiative can gain 1 million signatures, from the 500 million that make up the EU, the Commission will have to act on the proposal.

So if on October 2nd we vote Yes we will not be “Bending Over” we will be taking a step forward with the rest of Europe, strengthen Ireland’s position and giving us more say in Europe.

The Irish political parties seem to be set on advising the Irish people to go begging to the EU to be please “let in”. The number of politicians and public figures who have spoken out recently about the “need to be part of Europe” has multiplied at an astonishing rate. All and sundry seem to predict economic hell & damnation if we reject the Lisbon treaty a second time.

Earlier this week Tony Killeen the Junior Agriculture Minister noted:

“that a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have serious consequences for Irish agriculture and other business sectors. He added that a ‘Yes’ vote would deliver increased access to European Markets.”

He goes on to say that:

“Ireland is a small open economy which exports over 80% of every product and service it produces. Through our membership of the EU and the creation of the single market Irish business can now sell all of its goods and services to 486 million customers throughout the EU on an equal footing to any other company in the EU. In the past 10 years Irish companies have doubled their exports into EU member states from EUR44 billion to EUR87billion. However, the European single market is not yet fully realised particularly in the area of services. A yes vote on the Lisbon Reform Treaty would result in the single market project becoming more efficient and Irish business securing further business opportunities”

One can deduct several points form these statements:

• A 2nd no-vote would limit our ability to sell into other EU countries.
• A 2nd no-vote will quite possibly negatively affect the grants we currently receive from the EU.
• Because we (possibly) might make more money from voting yes for Lisbon we should let the EU also control our political & legislative systems.

All this in the end seems to evolve around the importance of making or getting money. Now while I am all in favour of making money (being an entrepreneur at heart) I also have certainly principles and standards. And I expect others to have the same. In the words of John C. Mellencamp: “you’ve got to stand for something or you will fall for anything”. Now if I am a member of what is supposed to be a democratically ruled club and when we vote for a significant change in the way the club is run, does the threat from other members that I will be punished if I vote different than them not throw that democracy right out of the window?

Really this is all about selling out our principles & autonomy for money, plain and simple. Most of the Celtic Tiger economy was funded by EU money, most of our farming sector has been atificially kept alive by massive agricultural grants etc. And yes, the establishment of the EU in it’s current form has done wonders about establishing a pan-european free market. However while the EU makes perfect sense as an economic and trading entity I do not think it should be allowed to extend into legislative and political areas. There is simply no need.

The EU as a legislative body will not benefit anybody but the bureaucrats in charge of the various departments, ministeries and workgroups etc. There will be rule making for the sake of rule making and the executive bodies will be far removed and out of touch with the people and issues they are supposed to regulate. I am of the opinion that a Dublin based government has a hard enough time managing issues important to the area where I live so I can’t see how a governing body based in Brussels could do any better.

The fact is that the EU is fine the way it is now. There is no (real) need to expand the powers of the EU government and limit those of the individual national governments.