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.

In a great day for Irish and European democracy, the Irish people, on a higher turnout than Nice II, rejected the illegitimate and anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty by 53.4% to 46.6%. In doing so, they have struck a blow for freedom and against remote, unaccountable and undemocratic rule by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. They have shown great courage in the face of an Establishment media blitz by Independent Newspapers, the Irish Times, the Sunday Business Post, The Tribune and others who bombarded us with a relentless torrent of black propaganda about the “disaster” a no vote would be for Ireland. As I pointed out on a previous post, the final day before polling was marked by a disgraceful attempt at scaremongering on the front-page of the Irish Independent, claiming that a “No” vote would accelerate rising unemployment. It is interesting that while the margins were not as large on the day, the poll on the Independent’s own website and the story’s comment pages were deluged by angry criticism of the story and support for a “No” vote.

This outcome cannot be separated from the context in which it takes place, which relates to one of my biggest grievances against our party-political culture - namely the culture of the “cosy-consensus”, in which like the ideological equivalent of a business-cartel cornering the market by refusing to compete with one another on price, the political-elites insist on refusing to compete with one another on a certain set of political issues. The Irish elites insisted - like with immigration - on refusing to represent the huge segment of public opinion that has historically opposed closer European political integration. Never has that been more true that now, with the elites continuing to display open contempt for our decision. Only yesterday, Una Claffey, former government spokesperson, argued that in Lisbon “we” had gotten all we wanted. Who is the “we” in this? This mantra continues to be repeated by members of the FF elite, who insisted during the referendum campaign that “we” had gotten all our “redlines” in the negotiations. Again who are “we”? The answer is clear - they are referring to themselves - the elite. Never in the history of Irish politics as an independent country have our political-class be so out of touch with the people they claim to represent.

It is infuriating to me, as a “no” voter, to hear Barroso, Wallstrom, Polish PM Donald Tusk, French Secretary for Europe Jouyet, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and others insist that the ratification of the Treaty must go ahead. On the contrary it must not go ahead, and most certainly must not apply to Ireland in its current form. The Irish people have said “no” and if the elites persist in trying to railroad us into ratification by trying to isolate us by getting the other 26 governments and parliaments to ratify Lisbon, then it will only reinforce Irish and European public opinion of Brussels as a remote and anti-democratic project. While a pro-European myself, I had not choice but to vote no due to a number of factors including those I have described in the previous post. The French and Dutch peoples have already said no. Now the Irish have said no. You don’t need to be a rocket-scientist to deduce how the British would vote had they been given the opportunity. When the Irish politicians tell the other states should continue ratification, what they really mean is that the governments and parliaments of those countries should do so - for not one of them will dare put this to a referendum in their respective countries due to the certainty of a “no” vote. Sarkozy said as much in a meeting with journalists some months ago.

Our decision on the current package is final. Another tarted-up copy of the rejected formula rejected by the Dutch, French, and now Irish is a non-runner. We Irish are tiring of the “permanent revolution” of European integration. We want to remain in the EU and the euro, but not at any price. The recent reintroduction of the annual 1916 parades have served to remind the Irish people of what was sacrificed for our freedom, and I believe a richer Ireland is now more self-confident and inclined to defend its sovereignty in a way that was not the case in the past. If they come back to us again with a new package, we must insist it be radically different - at least in its application to Ireland - from the one we have rejected. That must include the deletion of the self-amending Article 48 that allows for treaty ratification without referenda, the retention of our Commissioner and voting weight on the Council, an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights like Poland and the UK obtained, and the retention of our national vetoes on issues like energy, public health, and tourism and sport. Anything less deserves the same answer we gave on June 12th.

Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore will be more uncomfortable tonight than simply for losing an election. In their own ways they will each feel the pressure of having to face the fallout of a no vote. While it is easy to explain the no as a rejection of the entire establishment, that explanation does not really help the leaders of the three main political parties in the country.

Yesterday they lost the Lisbon referendum for a number of reasons, not least the inability of the yes campaign to parse their arguments in ways that resonated with voters. When all of the ‘plan a’ failed, it was a case of resort to namecalling/intimidation/scare-mongering. All of this was done with various degrees of media help in an environment where any political scientist would have said they could not lose. But, lost they did and today they all face unique problems as a result.

Cowen: As head of government he is paradoxically quite secure. His party will rally around him as they always do, out of a sense of loyalty. In Europe and at home he will be besieged. Pressure on him to deliver some fix, some workaround will be immense as well as him have to face the shame (should it really be shaming?) of going to a European Council meeting and explaining our ‘no’ vote. He does not have to face any leadership challegne for the spin will allow him to get on with things in the business of government.

Yet this should not fool us, he is in deep trouble. The electorate that voted were making a statement against some of the orthodoxy of current economic governance. They decided all parties were illegitimate brokers for their concerns - fishing, farming, labouring, manufacturing - and opted to support independent minded TDs and non-governmental bodies campaigning for a no vote. Cowen cannot afford to ignore such a trend in the FF heartland of rural Ireland.

The loss of fishing, farming and urban C2DE votes will harm him in the local elections. Not only does he have to face Europe and work something out to their satisfaction, he has to remain cognisant of what voters want and why they voted as they did. A balancing act in which I do not envy him.

Enda Kenny: I made a point of suggesting that Cowen is a safe leader because it now seems clear that Enda Kenny is not. He failed to carry his own Mayo constituency - as opposed to last May when 3 Fine Gael TDs were elected. Rumours have abounded since the last election of a possible move against Kenny, in the belief that he would be unable to move the party beyond their current position in 2012. The fact now exists that his attempt to direct a European campaign, aided by some big-name FG heads, was a failure. His decision to appoint Creighton as EU spokesperson did not pay off, his party could not convince its own voters to vote yes and he could not impose himself on the campaign.

Yes he is in opposition but Fine Gael has long been Ireland’s most European party, unflinchingly supportive of all EU measures. This is a rich electorate to tap for an opposition leader seeking to showcase his skills as a leader of men. It didnt happen and his party will look at next year’s local elections with some trepidation. Cowen and FF remain at 42% despite the Lisbon disaster yet Fine Gael are back to he bad old days of 23%. Knives will be sharpened and Kenny will have to fight for his life if he is to keep leadership, perhaps the injection of life is not a bad thing…..

Eamon Gilmore: Eamon Gilmore is in many ways a simple analysis but also a complicated one. First of all he is a leader of the third party, a social democratic party. He wanted a yes vote, on paper his core constituency of C2DE voters voted no. That break with the party ‘elite’ and its core vote is not isolated but is perhaps most worrying for Labour. If this was a mid-term kicking then they are alright but if those voters in urban Dublin see the Labour party as one they cannot identify with then trouble beckons. Lots of workigin class voters and constituencies voted no. Labour wanted yes. Therein lies the rub. That is the simple part.

The complicated part is Gilmore’s authority. After Ruairi Quinn’s solo run as IAE Chairperson there are issues about how Gilmore was leading his party. Who was the main Labour person on the campaign trail? Who was the one to whom we were listening for the Labour perspective? That division was not a clearcut handicap to Gilmore but it can easily be seen as such. If that is the case he also has a great deal of work to do to reassert his authority, link with his core electorate and prove Labour is in chime with these.

The people of the country have spoken, for good or ill. That must be respected.

Accordingly, I do not want to see another referendum - the outcome of this one must be heeded. The people are sovereign. The Constitution, deeply flawed as it is, governs this country over anything else; it is the source of power exercised by the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government in Ireland. It is also the source of our connection to the EU, but that does not mean it should not be altered to suit the EU over Ireland.

Listening to the tallies as they come in, the socio-economic breakdown was very clear - working class voters opposed it very much. It is purely my own view, but I’d be inclined to suggest that the left-wing arguments against privatisation were the ones that had the most impact, as opposed to the Libertas arguments. It was not, I believe, an anti-government vote - the two main opposition parties called for a Yes vote along with the Government. I do not believe it was a Eurosceptic vote either. Ireland is pro-Europe and pro-EU.

I never agreed with the the way the Treaty was being ratified across Europe and that was my primary reason for voting no. I know some people reading this will be very displeased at the outcome, and I am genuinely sorry for that. I want to see Europe integrated better than it is now. But not this way. 3 million people determining the outcome of a treaty by a direct vote, with the other several hundred million not having this same very powerful method of determining the outcome, is, to my mind, profoundly undemocratic. I do not believe either, that the people in the other EU member states gave their governments a mandate to decide on this treaty; they gave their governments a mandate to govern on domestic issues.

Another issue that bothered me was the Laval case. I hummed and hawed over this one, initially inclined to accept it and hope it was a one off. The Laval case gives rise to fundamental questions under EU law, namely, whether Community law can restrict or prohibit trade unions in one Member State taking industrial action. It also considers whether the application of collective agreements in a host Member State be restricted by EU law.

In the case, Swedish unions took action against a Latvian construction company - Laval - over the working conditions of Latvian workers refurbishing a school in a town called Vaxholm. Laval refused to sign a collective agreement, and a blockade of the work place was initiated by the trade unions as a consequence. The Swedish Labour Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In December 2007, the ECJ indicated that the right to strike is a fundamental right, but not as fundamental as the right of businesses to supply cross-border services. It is my opinion that the ruling amounts to a licence for social dumping, and key features of national industrial relations systems face being superseded by the free movement provisions. This puts a fundamental right of an individual or group of individuals at a disadvantage to a company. It is my view that this is wrong. I had to vote no on this ground also.

I spent a great deal of time considering how I would vote on this momentous treaty. I am satisfied with my vote, and I am satisfied that I considered it from a European, and not an Irish perspective. I am a passionate European. I am not a Euro-sceptic. This was my first No vote on a European referendum. I fervently hope that it will be my last.

He was speaking after the no vote and it was very brief. Barroso though did point up the major EU talking point over the next couple of days.

18 States have approved the Treaty and the remaining ratifications should continue their course. European institutions will continue to work delivering for citizens of Europe.

Also fits:
“I’ve been completely honest about Libertas’ sources of funding”
“Rivada has nothing to do with the arms industry”

Wednesday’s Irish Independent is a case-in-point for those of us who suspect the press of siding with the Establishment against the people over Lisbon. With jobs losses growing by the week, they cynically attempt to link the issue to the possibility of a “No” vote to the June 12th referendum. This article is pure facile scaremongering and beneath contempt. But it deserves a reply from the “No” camp, and as a determined “no” voter who believes the time has come to draw a line in the sand against further surrender of sovereignty to Brussels, I firmly believe it merits - just - a response.

These job losses are already happening - without Lisbon in force. Why should they suddenly soar after a “No” vote? This is utter rubbish. If anything a “Yes” vote will jeopardise the Irish economy considering the threats of Article 113 which calls for the harmonisation of indirect and turnover taxes to combat “distortions of competition”. It also copperfastens the plan by EU Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs to introduce destination-taxes on companies exporting from Ireland under a scheme - said to be backed by 2/3rds of member states and Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso - known as CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base). During last Monday’s debate on the Treaty, Declan Ganley, leader of the anti-Treaty group Libertas, read out comments by IBEC condemning CCCTB about a year ago. It is highly strange then, that IBEC has lined up with the Establishment behind Lisbon, especially as other senior businessmen like Ganley, Ulick McEvaddy and Chris Coughlan (President-elect of Chambers Ireland) have come out for a “no” vote. Clearly they can’t all be right about what is best for the economy and business. Continue Reading »
The answer must be no

Ruth Dudley Edwards is blogging the Referendum at The Specatator and her initial post is, as ever, thought provoking.

It’s largely a class thing.  The posh are pro and those in fear of bad times are anti.  If – as looks likely – it’s a No, it’ll be the politicians wot lost it.

I think that is an interesting vein of analysis in times when truckers and fisherman are protesting around Europe at the effect of global demand for key resources and the level of unemployment hits 200,000 for the first time - especially if we vote ‘no’, this will likely be one of the key frameworks for explaining a no vote whether true or not.

Edit by Cian: This was scheduled for yesterday but got caught in wordpress somehow, apologies for lateness (though its still relevant).

FT leader this yesterday morning:

A No vote would be a political bombshell in Brussels and would threaten to set the whole EU reform debate back to first base…
It seems extraordinary that the Irish could be so apparently ungrateful. Their country has reaped greater benefits from its 35 years of EU participation than any other member state, with the possible exception of Spain…
Putting the treaty to such a plebiscite is absurd. There is nothing in it that damages Irish interests, or significantly affects the constitution. It is certainly not perfect. No negotiated compromise of 27 states could be. But Irish voters would be ill-advised to reject it.

Thomas Byrne TD will be familiar to blog readers. The newly elected TD competed via blog and on the ground with Dominic Hannigan for votes last May. Anyhow, turns out his former speciality was solicitor specialising in EU law and in a public message on the blog he is inviting voters (I doubt he could be that picky about geography - it is a referendum after all) to email him questions on the treaty before they go and vote (thomas.byrne-at-oireachtas.ie thanks to oireachtas.ie). Positive engagement beats the more scary tone elsewhere.