There is a lot of interesting discussion in the European blogosphere about issues related to the Irish referendum. Like the list of demands of Sinn Féin. Like the speculation about funding of Libertas by the American defence establishment. The latter is typical 'undernews' that is, for now, being ignored by the mainstream media.
But let's not lose sight of the big picture.
The Lisbon Treaty did not fail the Irish referendum due to evil American defence corporations, rich Irish corporate hacks, or because it had some elements that irked a small post-marxist Irish party. It failed because it failed to take into account basic emotional responses that any European electorate would have had. If put to a referendum, it would fail in the vast majority of European Union Member States.
A collection of relevant quotes:
On June 18th, 2008, in the comments on the European Tribune:
The disconnect between politicians and the public means that it is rather difficult to even find out why the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The biggest mistake right now would be to negotiate with the political parties who campaigned for the 'no'. They do not deliver anymore. As much as we might dislike it, the American and Irish financial backers of the 'no' campaign and Rupert Murdoch are more relevant partners. Ultimately, though, even their sway is limited. What would be needed is a direct dialogue with the citizens, which politicians don't have any clue about (neither do I, no idea how to organise something like that). See further:On October 16th, 2006, with regard to Andrew Duff's ill-thought-out proposal to revive the dead 'Constitution', on this blog:Centre for European Politics - CEP Blog - Ireland's No to Lisbon: What are the causes?
The dynamic of a second round of referendums will be the same. People will be confronted with a European Union they neither think a lot, know a lot, or care a lot about. These people will see a document that is confusing but threatens (already by its name) to increase the powers and importance of this entity, will be alarmed and will vote it down. You need to go to the voters with something they can understand after minimal effort. The 'Constitution' is only comprehensible to those who understand EU law and spent many hours reading it.This applies - mutatis mutandis - directly to the Lisbon Treaty. Its name was slightly better. Its contents were even more obscure.
On December 18th, 2006, with regard to Margot Wallström's criticism of the intransparent process for drafting what would become the Lisbon Treaty, also on this blog:
In the end, it is the outcome that counts (e.g. a concise document that actually stands the chance of winning a round of referendums). [...] I think that eventually, some of the unnecessary (decorative) substance [...] should also be slashed, which will ideally leave us with a reader-friendly document of no more than 20 pages.Margot Wallström gets a lot of flack for not effectively communicating the European Union, which is her task as Commissioner. But with the national government leaders determined to ignore the public, what space does she have? I would like for her to lash out even harder, but it's not my job that's on the line.
On June 17th, 2008, in the comments on the Atlantic Review:
The lack of a European demos is an argument that is overestimated to some degree. Integration theorists tend to think that you can create a demos by fueling popular discussion of the EU through the media and other channels. I tend to think that people will start engaging more with the EU only when they get a larger amount of say, and the EU starts making decisions that are more directly relevant to people's lifes. Then people will organise along their political preferences, without there being a need for a felt common identity created through the media and the (often lame) symbols that are currently clung to by many enthousiasts of deeper integration.In a reply to that comment in the Atlantic Review thread, Joe Noory of the right wing ¡No Parasan! blog gets this:
I think this thing has suffered from intangibility due to overcomplication. Each of the public votes was rejected on the fear that Brussels would have too much power in one area or another. There needs to be a straitforward conversation about the separation of powers, and a short, concise constitution that the broader public can understand and either support or advise change on. Only then will people actually know what their rights are.The failure of Lisbon is due to the lack of a coherent narrative, the normal baseline of public perception of the EU (low saliency, just another regulator), the obscurity of the treaty. This logically leads to ignorance and a scare reaction - and those logically lead to a 'no' vote.
These rejections are founded entirely on voters having a fear of what they don't think they're being told about it, and a suspicion that Brussels will not respect any limitations put on its' power.
They should just go back and study the German, US, and Lebanese constitutions and start over. Read up on the essential properties of each of those documents, and you'll see why.
Every cloud has a silver lining edition: Although I would have liked for Lisbon to pass, this is not all bad for this blog. As I wrote in a post last November:
In the past two years, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand people's general perceptions of the EU, in order to understand why they rejected the 'Constitution' and how a new treaty might be constructed that would be able to win referendums.After some more narcissistic self-quoting - what can I say? I was right, and I do not claim originality for these views, I got them from a lot of other sources - we might finally get around to that. For now, let's retire this monologue with the following: The gap between how the vast 'silent majority' perceives the European Union and how the majority of those inundated with EU politics perceive it and think it is perceived is immeasurable. The latter are living in a fantasy of what could ideally be. By now, that bubble should have burst.
As the government leaders in the European Council have decided that referendums are to be avoided wherever they can be, most of this effort has been in vain. Still, I'll try to sum up some conclusions, soon.
Another cheap outstanding promise, I know. But have faith and stay tuned.
Posts
6 comments:
"The failure of Lisbon is due to the lack of a coherent narrative, the normal baseline of public perception of the EU (low saliency, just another regulator), the obscurity of the treaty. This logically leads to ignorance and a scare reaction - and those logically lead to a 'no' vote."
Why do you europhiles persist in the arrogant assumption that if a person voted no, then it follows they must simply be "ignorant". I don't, for one moment, believe the Irish people voted no out of "ignorance". They knew exactly what the treaty would mean ..less transparency, less accountability, further erosion of national sovereignty and more power to the EU.
I wouldn't call this ignorant, I would call it eminently wise and sensible.
The European Union IS a fantasy world .. founded on flawed anti-democratic Big Government concepts and blind to the truth of its unpopularity. It exists in it's own kind of circus-world, detached from reality and (behind the facade of glitter and greasepaint, unfunny clowns and fancy high-wire acts)it's tawdry, pathetic and on it's way out. It's a relic of the past. It has to go.
Jo,
Of course there were some people who voted against Lisbon because they disliked the content (as presented to them -- no one actually read the thing).
However, I'm talking about a general dynamic, and you can't say that the Irish understood the treaty when 40% of those polled stated that they opposed the treaty because they did not understand it.
(this was also clear in pre-referendum polling by the Irish times)
So, not an assumption. A fact.
Your figure of 48% refers to those who did NOT vote at all, I believe.
According to Eurobarometer, when asked the same question, the figure for those who voted No was less than a quarter of respondents.
The other response all reflected disatisfaction with the treaty itself.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf
And don't forget either, that this is from a country which is historically very pro EU. We can only guess at what the figures would have revealed if an historically eurosceptic country such as Britain had been given it's promised referendum. Which is why,of course, the government reneged on it's pledge.
Jo,
The Irish times stated the following:
When asked to give a single reason for voting No, some 40 per cent of people replied that they didn’t understand the treaty. A fifth of respondents said they voted No to protect Irish identity while 17 per cent of respondents said they didn’t trust politicians or Government policies.
As the flash Eurobarometer produces preliminary results, I note that it is possible that these are two different questions.
Otherwise, aside of the 22% in the Eurobarometer who stated that they voted no because they did not understand Lisbon, another 10% stated that they did so because they did not trust the politicians or their policies.
I have no doubt that the treaty would also have failed in the UK (as I stated, it would have failed in most Member States).
Nanne,
Let us suppose that support and opposition against the Lisbon Treaty stands at, for instance, 50/50.
If there had been referendums, a number of member states would have voted no.
Overwhelming support in parliamentary ratification votes this far indicates that there is an 'objective' need for EU reform along the lines of the minimalist compromise the Lisbon Treaty represents.
I have three conclusions:
1) Don't force a new vote on the same question on the Irish.
2) Try to enact the substance of the Lisbon Treaty among the willing states.
3) Combine the Lisbon Treaty with a pledge to give the EU citizens the two necessary ingredients of democratic rule: to vote in and out the officeholders and to set the basic political course of the EU through their elected representatives. This too among the willing states.
Post a Comment