Intersting analysis over at Open Democracy about the reasons Lisbon was rejected and an attempt to conceptualise the ‘democratic deficit’ that was apparently at the heart of the rejection. It is interesting from perusing the papers today that this analysis is taking a lot of hold, that it was the local context that informed voters perspective on Europe.

I am not sure there can be any other way of approaching this short of asking all people to be European citizens in the fullest possible sense of identification.

As Richard Sinnott outlined in the Irish Times yesterday, that is a huge ask of a country where 59% describe themselves as solely “Irish”. The analysis is interesting for it suggests that the lack of a joined up system between the EU, our executive which negotiates treaties, the Dail and the media/public is what constitutes a lack of democracy in Europe. That the EU itself is ok but the procedures in this country for connecting voters to it, plugging them in and getting the buy-in or cache that wins referenda is not there. They may not be off the mark in one sense, school water charges anyone?.

Yet there is a more fundamental disconnect expressed here, I think the word that swung many voters was consolidation because pro-EU as we may be we do not want a Federal State. There is a chaotic element to Europe that is reassuring to voters, it tells them that no one is in charge per se and it remains an intergovernmental plaything at its very core. The idea of consolidation, of rationalising, of tidying up is a bridge too far at present. The idea hints at a centrality and organisation that we are more familiar with at national level, an ability to organise policy and law from the centre. It did not need to be spelled out because it was not a rational argument, it was an emotive response.

Like a pavlovian response, voters were presented with a “consolidating” treaty and thought, hang on. They didn’t do it in huge numbers, 53%-46% is not a landslide, but they did it in far greater numbers than in Nice I with a lot of “soft no” votes coming down to vote and abandoning the 60% pro-EU majority that seems to be latent in the country. Most notable voters in this regard were Munster and Connaught voters who saw this as a step they would not take - by as much as 60% - 40% in some cases.

Personally I think it was far more than a democratic deficit that swung it, dislocated social groups were wary of voting in favour of distant sites of governance (real or perceived). When the socio-economic activity is moving rapidly out of their locality and either outsourcing abroad or drying up as an industry the desire and impulse is, naturally, to retain control as locally as possible.