The Irish, or to be more precise, 53% of the Irish, have decided to reject the Lisbon treaty which is today up for discussion in Britain’s amending chamber. The Prime Minister’s pledge that ratification will go ahead may well be at least paused should Lord Howell get his way, one more pause in the resuscitation of the agreement already in the political intensive care unit. Should our support be lent to, in Conservative leader David Cameron’s words, an ”arrogant and high handed move” to foist an unwanted treaty on the unsuspecting people of Europe or should “fewer than a million stroppy Irish voters” have the power to prevent the world’s finest example of close inter-state co-operation reforming to better cope with its latest expansion?
If i haven’t already divulged my view in the opening paragraph then let me say now, i believe that ratification must continue as planned. If the Irish have to go back to the polls then so be it. If that constitutes high handed arrogance then at least it prevents is the tub thumping populism which the Tories are espousing at the moment. Referendums as a rule are open to the accusation of undermining the principles of parliamentary democracy, however the Irish require a democracy for any law which amends thier constitution. Still, foreign policy is a notoriously complex and foggy area even for those who have studied and or work within it. EU treaties are only read by students and lawyers who have no choice, i doubt very much every Irish voter read it, which is as much a point against those who voted yes as those who voted no. The Irish are unquestionably within thier right to reject a treaty of byzantine complexity, and this method of trying to “smuggle the treaty past voters” is surely a mistake in a union whose people request more transparency. Of course though, we all know that referendums rarely stick purely to the issue on the ballot paper, anyone doubting this ask the French who voted against the treaty in 2005 to spite Chirac and his government.
All the same, we have a referendum result, and there are reasonable reservations to be taken from them. For one, it is truly time for the Union to take a long hard look at how it reflects the population which it governs, because there is clearly a ‘democratic deficit’, or more precisely a democratic chasm of understanding between Eurocrats and the people of Europe. It’s not about popularity, or throwing more money about, its about sorting facts from fiction and increasing accountability and transparency at the top. Sinn Fein have been accused of lying about the treaty to secure a no vote; perhaps if the treaty was more transparent the yes camp would have been able to sell it more persuasively. So as i have said perhaps an muddily opaque treaty of this nature comes at precisely the wrong time.
The complicated and painful birth of this treaty reflects the content of it. It is, essentially, a version of the terribly named ill fated EU constitution which has been hacked away at by the international legal equivalent of a team of plastic surgeons trying to please 27 different conceptions of what is beautiful. Unsurprisingly, what is left isn’t exactly light bedtime reading at its most eloquent. The Irish have a point in their concerns about neutrality, abortion and other facets of the treaty which encroach upon mainstream Irish opinion, and it is hardly an accesible document to skim over and check the facts. Now though, these worries should be allayed, and should, following the Nice saga, have been better considered in the first place.
Notwithstanding, this treaty contains decisions which are important to the future of the union and how it will be able to absorb countries in the future and deal with those countries which it has absorbed in the near past. It will sort out the farcical nature of the rotating presidency and strengthen the foreign policy, a notoriously difficult area for the individualist countries of the EU. Intriguingly, this should lead to a simpler lay-out at the top of the Union, and a smaller bureaucracy with the slimmed down commission, something voters in the UK have squawked about whenever the EU is mentioned. It will make the voting system more positive by scrapping the veto system in several areas and extending Qualified Majority Voting, a far more efficient way of running a 27 nation union. Vetoes will still exist, but the union will no longer be held up by ridiculously self serving gestures from one country, be that country the UK, Ireland, Estonia or even, shock horror, France or Germany. Should every decision be subject to a veto by a state of Malta’s size for instance? A state with the population of a medium sized British city. Or would it be fairer to take into account the size and population of those states as well as the amount of votes they cast? The trouble with asking the Irish to vote for this is the same one as the lobby seeking to gather a referendum from turkeys about whether or not to continue with this year’s Christmas celebrations. They stand to lose thier disproportionate clout at the EUs top table, as do other grumblers the Czech Republic and Slovenia. Notwithstanding, joining the EU is a step which implies that you are ready to pool your sovereignty, lose a little bit of control over your own affairs in return for a say in what happens on the continent.
Ireland has voted no, just, on several important issues to the Irish. Should we address their concerns? Yes. Should we look at the problems posed by a democratic deficit? Dear God yes. Should we stop an international project because of the concerns of one half of the population of a country voting on a treaty which they haven’t even read? If it is possible to continue ratification and try and learn the lessons and placate the Irish view, then I vote, No. I sincerely hope that the confrontational and punishing tone from Europe’s heavyweights can be toned down and they can demonstrate an understanding for what this rejection really means. I have a gut feeling that if they don’t, the Irish will vote no again.
