“No!”: how the Irish proved their ignorance
What makes people vote “no” to a text they have never read?
The Irish “Say No to the Lisbon Treaty” campaign has been the perfect occasion for people to express their dislike of a number of elements: the “Europe of Defence” military idea, increases in taxes, …
Yet who are the Irish to say “no” to a project they do not approve in its entirety? When has a veto on a small part of a project had any positive impact? Especially when the issues at stake had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty?
Back in the days of the Constitutional Treaty, France and the Netherlands said “No” to the Constitutional Treaty, after a campaign that used many completely irrelevant arguments to convince the French and Dutch that the Constitutional Treaty was a bad idea.
The result was almost inevitable, a “no” vote to Chirac and the Bolkenstein directive in France, and a “no” vote to the Dutch government and to the European plans for Turkey in the Netherlands.
So what are the reasons for the Irish “no”?
Apparently, the ballot had this question: “Do you want to change the Irish Constitution?” (source).
This in itself was good enough a reason for many Irish voters to reject the idea. Who doesn’t take pride in his/her country’s Constitution (except for the Belgians)? Who, in their right, patriotic mind, would want Europe to come and impose a change in the Constitution?
Secondly, many completely unrelated arguments were used in the “No” campaign: find me one place where the Lisbon Treaty mentions the word “abortion”, for example.
Thirdly, many people throughout Europe believe that the EU does not need changing. “It’s good as it is.” But then try explaining the co-decision procedure to those people. Try explaining the legal uncertainties as to the EU’s competence in a number of fields. Try explaining how institutions take on different roles depending on the subject matter. You’ll see: they’ll ask you how on earth things could get this complicated.
And where the Irish are concerned, they don’t like the idea of a more efficient procedure regarding commissioners, … What is the point of objecting to that by rejecting the whole text?
The EU does need change. The EU needs the Lisbon Treaty, just like it needed the Constitutional Treaty. The text might not be perfect, but no text ever is, and it is therefore foolish to think that, with time, the text proposed to the Irish will be genuinely acceptable by all.
The main problem is that Ireland needs to hold a referendum to amend its Constitution. And until Ireland’s politicians can get the people to understand the Lisbon Treaty, the “no” will resound and make Europe scorn at the Irish.
Until then, I will have lost all faith in the idea of a referendum. After all, a referendum basically says “this is what the government wants – if you don’t want it, you don’t adhere to the government’s plan”. It’s no surprise that most people who turn up to vote are those who don’t agree with the plan, because they are the ones who are more partisan.
As the Ancient Greeks knew, democracy is not the best answer to all problems, because the people rarely know what they want or what is good for them. The only way for them to know is if they are informed. And I think we all know how little true information is passed on to the people in general. Why should a referendum campaign be any different?