Lisbon Treaty rejection : How the campaigns played out
We won but the hard work
is just beginning
BY EOIN Ó BROIN
Sinn Féin Policy Director
Lisbon Treaty Referendum Campaign
Text and photo: An Phoblacht, 19. June 2008
THE UNTHINKABLE has happened. With a high turn-out and a wide margin, the ‘No’
campaign has defeated the Lisbon Treaty. The responses from the Government, the ‘Yes’
campaign more generally, and their partners across the EU have ranged from the measured to the
extreme. The more fanciful exhortations of those such as Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell; his
German EPP colleague, Elmer Brock; and Social Democrat German Foreign Minister Frank Walter
Steinmeier should be treated with the derision they deserve and simply ignored.
More measured comments from Fianna Fáil Minister Micheál Martin, Labour leader
Eamon Gilmore and British Foreign Minister David Milliband provide a clearer indication of
how things are likely to proceed. As RTÉ correspondent Micheál Lehane said on last
Sunday’s RTÉ Six-One News, despite the “fighting talk across Europe”,
the private mood in Brussels is that there is “no short-term solution” and that
we are heading for “a long and intricate process”.
Defeat of the entire political and social establishment
That the entire political
and social establishment was defeated in this referendum is remarkable. Fianna Fáil,
Fine Gael, Labour, the PDs and Green Party ministers were supported by IBEC, the ICTU, the
ICMSA and, albeit belatedly, the Irish Farmers’ Association. They were assisted by large
sections of what can only be described as a partisan media.
This formidable coalition
were beaten primarily by an alliance of progressive groups including Sinn Féin, the
Campaign Against the EU Constitution (CAEUC) – to which Sinn Féin belongs –
and trade unions Unite, TEEU and, in their own diplomatic way, SIPTU. That Sinn Féin
was the only group organised in and campaigning across every constituency in the state must be
recognised. Indeed, those constituencies with the largest ‘No’ votes are those in
which Sinn Féin’s organisation and campaign were strongest, whether Dublin North-East
or Donegal.
However, the work of all sections of this alliance were essential to the end
result. In particular, the contributions of Joe Higgins, the People’s Movement,
PANA (Peace and Neutrality Alliance) and Afri were of enormous importance. That such a diverse
left coalition operated without disagreement is significant and in stark contrast to the divisions
within the ‘Yes’ campaign.
It is also important to acknowledge the significance
of Libertas. While some on the left will want to diminish their impact, there is little doubt
that they convinced a large number of voters to reject the treaty on grounds both similar to
those of us on the left, such as the democratic deficit, and those more palatable to the right,
such as low corporation tax. However, other groups such as Coir were peripheral to the
campaign, proffering spurious arguments and, as the opinion polls indicate, with marginal
impact.
The serious players on the ‘No’ side – Sinn Féin and our allies
in CAEUC and indeed Libertas – ran our campaigns focusing on the issues, explaining
the text of the treaty and its implications for both Ireland and the EU.
The ‘Yes’ camp, with the exception of some in the Labour Party and Fine Gael,
refused to engage with the text of the treaty. Instead, they focused on the benefits the
EU has brought to Ireland. When this approach was seen to falter they divided their energies
between attacking individuals and organisations on the ‘No’ side and attempting
to frighten people with scare stories of Ireland becoming the pariahs of Europe, losing influence,
jobs and foreign direct investment.
For more democracy, less militarisation,
for a social Europe and workers’ rights
In the end, the public refused to be browbeaten into
accepting a treaty that was so obviously not in the interests of Ireland or the European Union.
Their concerns were three-fold and bore a striking resemblance to the reasons behind the French
and Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution. Concern with the deepening democratic deficit,
unintelligibility of the text itself, loss of commissioner, reduction of voting strength at
Council, loss or weakening of key strategic vetoes and the self-amending nature of the treaty,
concern with the developing EU common foreign and military policies and their impact on our
neutrality, and fears about the impact of the treaty on workers’ rights, public services
and social Europe. There was also clearly concern with two aspects of the treaty’s trade
agenda, namely the loss of the World Trade Organisation veto and the impact of trade policy on
the developing world.
While the Irish ‘No’ renders the Lisbon Treaty
effectively dead, all of these issues still need to be addressed. Brian Cowen needs to
communicate these issues to his EU counterparts when he attends the European Council meeting
today and tomorrow and start the process of negotiating a new treaty. Government Chief
Whip Pat Carey’s caution against “raising unrealistic expectations” ignores
the fact that the people have spoken and rather than minimise or seek to avoid the consequences
the Government must listen and act, irrespective of its own pre-referendum view of the situation.
However, in order to ensure that Government finds the political will to act, there is a
responsibility on all of us who campaigned against this treaty to ensure that the Government
is either assisted or pressurised into securing the better deal that the electorate has
demanded.
Turn-out and opinion polls indicate the wide demographic range of the ‘No’
vote. Predominantly working class and rural, the ‘No’ vote also included many young people,
women and a small but significant increase in middle-class opposition. However, any attempt to read
this broad based opposition as indicating a shift in electoral support for the major parties must be
treated with extreme caution. Party support particularly for Fianna Fáil and Labour remain
steady despite their position on the treaty.
Despite claims by some, we are not in
uncharted territory. As with our previous rejection of Nice and the French and Dutch rejection
of the EU Constitution, our political leaders must go back to the negotiating table. However, this
time they must listen to the people and return with a new treaty reflective of the demands of the
people: for more democracy, less militarisation, protections for public services and workers’
rights, promotion of social Europe and support for the developing world.
We may have won last
Thursday but the hard work is only beginning.