The irony screams. A country that once enjoyed a reputation for staunch pro-European views has voted against a treaty to ostensibly make the European Union more workable. No one in Ireland denies that the country has benefited financially from membership in the European Union, or that in simple terms Ireland has got more out than it has put in. Why then was the treaty rejected?

Certain elements came together to create a perfect storm. Both, a chance to strike back against the Dublin government as the country grapples with an economic downturn and allegations of sleaze were factors. So, too, were deep suspicions that Ireland’s military neutrality would be compromised if the Treaty of Lisbon was adopted. Fears that the Irish ban on abortion would be overturned and that Ireland’s low rate of corporate tax would be increased by Brussels diktat rallied more people to the No banner. There was also general feeling that the treaty was too vague and resentment that the Irish were the only electorate obliged to vote on it—due to constitutional necessity. All the other countries could ratify the treaty through their parliaments.

But if the treaty was so important, ‘why not let the rest of the European Union vote on it’ was a common question among the Irish. For instance, why not let the UK vote on it? The simple answer is that Brussels realised it would be roundly defeated in the UK, as it would in France which already blocked the treaty’s first draft (the Nice Treaty) in a referendum three years ago.

In a massive boost to the Irish ‘’No’’ vote the French foreign minister warned Ireland that a ‘’No’’ victory would be met with ‘’gigantic misapprehension’’. Many voters in Ireland found his remark offensive.

On top of this was a sense that Brussels needed a basic lesson in democracy. For some, there was an old score to settle. The Irish had been here before.

In 2001, when Irish voters rejected the Nice treaty, the forerunner of the Lisbon treaty, it was largely due to concerns over neutrality. Those concerns, the Irish were assured, could be addressed by adding a declaration to the treaty and changing the Irish constitution. Nice was put to the people again and passed. But then the French and Dutch rejected it, which made Nice redundant. Hence, the need for Lisbon.

Adding force to the gathering storm was an insipid Yes campaign by the main political parties. Advertisements backing the campaign for a Yes vote were of the ‘It will be good for Ireland’ variety. Just why it would be good was never explained. The Irish prime minister gave the impression he had not read the treaty, as did Cabinet ministers and other senior politicians. The No vote had the passion; the Yes vote had the establishment.

At the heart of Europe there is a deficit of democracy, and because of this nobody knows just what Lisbon stands for. They can’t: it hasn’t been decided yet.

Information on the proposed Citizens' Initiative, on the referendum commission’s own website—which allows at least one million citizens from "a significant number" of member states to ask the commission to bring forward proposals on a particular issue—is nonsensical. The Commission would be obliged to "consider" the proposal, but "the details of how this would operate have yet to be decided".

The feeling that the treaty was written by bureaucrats using bland jargon is further reinforced with the explanation of commissioner numbers which was far from convincing.

 "The right to nominate a Commissioner will rotate among the Member States on an equal basis. This means that each Member State will nominate a member of the Commission for two out of every three Commissions (that is, 10 of every 15 year cycle)."

Now comes the punch line: "The precise details of how this will operate in practice have yet to be decided."

Power lies with the commissioners, but just how they will operate and be selected has ‘’yet to be decided’’.

This borders on the ridiculous. The Irish were asked to vote on a treaty whose wording was not exact, but was meant to make Europe more efficient. Nonetheless, the Irish took the vote seriously. All the main political parties were backing the Yes vote and an Irish prime minister actually admitted to losing his job partly because of it. Bertie Ahern stood down in May 2007 as Taoiseach (prime minister) because it was feared corruption allegations against him would help the No vote capitalise on his unpopularity. Ahern actually gave this as one of the reasons for his surprising resignation.

With Lisbon, the Irish were asked to vote for vagueness and a sense that their own influence as a small nation would be diluted on the altar of greater European co-operation, whatever that means. The Irish are not anti-Europe, they remain pro-European, but not as starry eyed as before. There was a feeling that Lisbon was as substantial as a blank cheque—which only they had been asked to sign. In the end, they refused to pick up the pen.

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com