Yes, Lisbon is confusing but it's best deal on offer
Related Articles
JOHN Mallon of Cork, in a letter in this newspaper on Wednesday, put it perfectly. His annoyance at Martin Cullen's "bullying" on the 'Questions and Answers' programme tempted him to vote No in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but he thought better of it.
I feel exactly the same, though I might have said blustering instead of bullying. Bluster seems to be the favourite weapon in the Fianna Fail arsenal. Minister after minister goes on television and shouts down the people who try to make an anti-government case. It doesn't matter that you can't hear what they are saying, because you can't hear their opponents either. Evidently, this is the object of the exercise. Have they been briefed accordingly? If so, they should sack the spinners, because this behaviour does their reputations no good, turns off the punters and harms whatever case the ministers are trying to make.
And they could make a very simple and convincing case, if only they would speak frankly and in terms the punters can understand.
Let's begin at the beginning. Two criticisms of the treaty are correct. One, it is the failed European constitution rewritten. Two, it is virtually impossible to make sense of the text.
The No camp, however, have not told us what was wrong with the European constitution in the first place. The truthful answer: not much.
It did fail the test of the referendums in France and Holland. But people in France and Holland, just as in Ireland, vote for all sorts of different reasons -- for example, against unpopular governments or against the boring grey men of European bureaucracy (for that is their unfortunate image, though some of them are not boring or grey or, indeed, male). And one of the reasons why the French and Dutch rejected the constitution was that they feared the boring grey men were trying to bounce them into voting for something they couldn't understand.
In fact, anything less like a bounce would be hard to imagine. The negotiations to agree a text had taken years and had taxed the skill and patience of the participants to the point of exasperation. In the end, even Bertie Ahern, that model of fortitude, found it impossible to conceal his feelings.
All this, however tedious, was inevitable. European treaties are like that. They derive from the foundation document, the Treaty of Rome, now more than 50 years old. Secondly, they deal with immensely complex matters on which the member states have as many views as the French have cheeses.
Kenneth Clarke, the former British chancellor of the exchequer, once confessed that he had not read the Maastricht Treaty. That brought forth howls of horror from hypocrites who had not read it themselves. I tried to read it, and failed. I found that in order to understand the text, I needed a copy of the Rome Treaty for reference, and I didn't have one. Had I got hold of one and compared the two documents line by line, the exercise might have taken about a week. How many people are going to spend a week reading the Lisbon Treaty line by line and looking up the necessary references? One in a hundred? Hardly that many. But it isn't necessary anyway.
The complaint about lack of information is entirely unfounded. There is abundant information available for anyone who wants it, and there will soon be more. The Government is obliged, by law, to supply it. An independent body will set out the arguments for and against. Then we will vote, with pencil and paper, in a free and fair poll. (What became of those e-voting machines, Martin?) So much for another complaint, lack of democracy. So having -- I hope -- set that much to rest, let me tell you why all the ministerial bluster and all the boring grey men won't prevent me from voting Yes in the referendum.
The European unity project has given the continent a period and a level of peace and prosperity unparalleled in history. The peace was obtained largely by reason of the American nuclear umbrella. The prosperity is threatened right now by the credit crunch. But these are arguments for another day.
The benefits to Ireland have been immeasurable. The usual reckoning of the direct aid we have had comes to about €40bn -- Angela Merkel puts it as €56bn. And we have made a lot more money than that out of the Celtic Tiger. Many myths surround the Tiger's birth, but nobody can deny that our EU membership helped.
We have enjoyed other benefits, less tangible but perhaps more important. Garret FitzGerald used to say that our membership had taken us out of the shadow of Britain. Instead of being "an island behind an island", we are as much part of the centre as any small country. More so, indeed, since we punch far above our weight in diplomacy and have much more influence on the decision-making process than any comparable country.
None of that will change with the coming into operation of a system of governance designed for 27 countries, instead of six, or nine, or 12, or 15. Which is not to say that the new system is perfect. It is complex. It is in some respects illogical. It is messy. But this is a messy old world.
And when you look closely at the boring grey men (to say nothing of the lively blonde women) you will find that they have more commitment to that essential component of democracy, serious public discourse, than our blustering ministers. They may be short on Irish-style hilarity. But please, tell me if you know where you can get anything better.
- James Downey
