Ireland and the Fate of the EU

WATCHING Irish commuters vote on the Lisbon treaty this morning, a heretical thought occurs to me: assuming today’s referendum approves the treaty, last year’s No vote looks like rather a brilliant move by Irish voters.

Consider the evidence. Last year, Irish voters said their government had not explained the treaty properly to them, and they had concerns that it would affect Irish shibboleths like abortion laws or military neutrality. Irish voters also disliked the idea that Lisbon was going to break the link between nation states and the European Commission, by ending the rule that every country gets a commissioner all the time.

In 2008, the government and major political parties did indeed do a dreadful job of selling the treaty, simply telling people that Europe was good for Ireland. They never crafted a simple explanation of the text. Disastrously in 2008, Ireland’s prime minister and EU commissioner said they had not read the treaty “cover to cover”. This, voters grumbled, felt like your lawyer telling you to sign a contract he has not read.

This time, most Yes voters popping into a polling station in the small town of Swords on their way to work gave me the same reason for their vote: that the treaty was needed to streamline the voting rules of an EU at 27 nations. Now, you can argue about whether it is invariably a good thing to streamline decision-making (a lynch mob is an example of streamlined decision making, as is the North Korean parliament). But that is the core of the argument in favour of the Lisbon treaty, and voters had clearly heard it this time. That was not at all the case when I stood outside polling stations in 2008.

By voting No, the Irish also forced the other 26 governments to come up with a package of concessions and assurances. They got to keep their commissioner (as did everyone else), and I can tell you that a lot of other small countries were privately delighted at the reversal of policy, as they had never wanted to lose their commissioner either. And Ireland was given solemn pledges that the treaty did not affect neutrality, abortion or Irish tax rates. In Brussels, it is fashionable to roll your eyes at these guarantees, which do not change anything about the treaty and address things that were never in the text in the first place.


I asked voters in Swords if they minded being asked to vote a second time. Their answers were interesting. “People do resent having to vote a second time, but I think it’s fair given all the misinformation that was around last time.

Fran Leavey, who voted No in 2008 but Yes this time, said it was “fundamentally wrong” to have to vote again, but that the first referendum had been handled badly by the government. This time, he volunteered, he had emailed politicians with his own questions about the treaty, and felt he had a better understanding of it.

It felt like Ireland was a “scolded child”, said Claire Bradley, a Yes and Yes voter. “You wouldn’t be a democrat if you didn’t mind being told to vote again until you get it right.” But she felt the Irish were wrong to vote No last time, and had not changed her mind since.

I met several switchers, all of whom were switching from No votes in 2008 to Yes votes this time, rather than the other way round. One woman told me her mood had been 50-50 this morning, but in the end she had voted Yes because: “I don’t think we’ve got much of a choice, what with the situation regarding jobs.”

I did meet some No-No voters, one of whom told me she was voting partly on behalf of other Europeans who are not being given a vote on Lisbon.

A final piece of evidence for my heretical thought comes from the Yes camp itself. Last year, the No campaign definitely had the sharper posters. “Lisbon, it’ll cost you,” went one 2008 No slogan, while the Yes camp offered platitudes like “Europe, let’s be at the heart of it.”

This time, the No camp seem fuzzier and less focussed,