Dustin Defeats Europe
By GulfStreamBlues on Friday, June 13 2008, 16:49 - Permalink

It’s official: the turkey
has defeated the treaty. I heard the news right before I boarded a
plane to Zurich to attend my brother’s high school graduation tomorrow.
I’m currently flying above the English channel, and as we cross over
the French coastline and enter airspace over the continent, I can’t
help but stare down at the land and think: what is to become of Europe?
Already
this morning when it was revealed that turnout had been low, people in
Brussels were fearing the worst. The conventional logic went that if
there was a high turnout there would be a yes result, and a low turnout
would mean a no. By tea time it was clear: Ireland has rejected
the Lisbon Treaty. The news has thrown Brussels into a virtual panic.
The RSS feeds on my google desktop toolbar, which are set to monitor
various Euroblogs and feeds, started going nuts. The Euro came crashing
down as soon as the news broke, falling to its lowest level in a month
against the dollar almost instantly upon the news. Various government
heads throughout Europe were rushing out with statements about what
this means. Of course at the moment, nobody seems to know for sure. All
that is known now, as Reuters’
Peter Graff writes, is that it looks like “a country with fewer than
one percent of the EU’s 490 million population has destroyed a treaty
painstakingly negotiated over years by leaders of all 27 member states.”
1) The Irish government - distracted by the start of a new prime minister after the previous one was recently forced to resign amidst scandal - did an inadequate job in educating the population about the treaty
2) The EU has become a magnet for people’s discontents, and people are attaching whatever grievances they have generally with society to it.
The schmorgasboard of disconnected groups that campaigned for a no vote is representative of the latter. The groups campaigned against the treat for all sorts of reasons, few of which had anything to do with the treaty itself. There were environmental activists, communists, anti-abortion activists, fervent Catholics, IRA members, farmers, disgruntled Eurovision fans and even Turkeys (Dustin the Turkey, who was Ireland’s Eurovision entry this year that mocked the contest, was eliminated in the first round and was booed off the stage, campaigned against the treaty). What was most bizarre was that the aims of many of these groups contradicted each other. But they had one overriding commonality: they saw the EU as the manifestation of whatever it is that they hate.
At the same time, the treaty’s ratification was backed by virtually every farmers group, business and union as well as by every major political party. But perhaps this solid establishment support only made these people more suspicious of the treaty.
What’s next
So what happens now? This is far from certain. At the minimum, the treaty will not come into force as planned on January 1, 2009, meaning that the EU Commission, which is mandated to have less seats than there are now current members, will become an unworkable body. A lack of confidence in Europe may drive down the value of the Euro, ending its steady ascent against the dollar and pound. The EU will be weakened internationally, particularly in its dealings with Russia and Iran, as it is stuck in limbo with dysfunctional foreign policy, defence institutions and presidency. At the minimum, this situation will exist until something can be worked out. But if nothing else can be worked out this current untenable situation would exist with no end in sight.
The leaders of Britain, Germany and France quickly announced after the news that they would continue their path toward ratification and would not now change course and put the treaty up for referendum in their own countries. Eurosceptics in the UK will likely step up their demands for a British referendum, but it is unlikely Gordon Brown will relent on this issue. Already accused of being a ditherer, a reversal on the referendum issue now would make him a laughing stock. So it looks like all of the other 26 states in the EU will have ratified the treaty by the end of the year. But that won’t do any good, as it requires ratification by all member states.
EU
leaders will hold an emergency meeting in Brussels next week to assess
the situation and to ask Ireland how it intends to proceed. Ireland’s
new prime minister Brian Cowen had previously ruled out putting the
same treaty to another vote like it did six years ago when Ireland
first voted down the Nice treaty. He could go to Brussels and ask for
special opt-outs for Ireland, but that would be a bit tricky since the
‘no’ campaign didn’t seem to have any specific objections. If it’s not
clear what the Irish didn’t like about the treaty (to the government or
to the voters), how is Cowen to know what to change in order to placate
them?Brussels seething
There will be a lot of very angry and upset people in Brussels today, particularly aggravated by the fact that Ireland has benefited enormously from being part of the EU and this vote, at the very least, will pretty ungrateful. But some Euro loggers are already urging some calm. John Worth pleaded in his blog today for people to show some calm - saying that comments like that of Bernard Koucher - who said ** - were not going to be helpful, even though that is what most everyone in Brussels is probably thinking. Jon rgues that the EU needs to quickly figure out what it was the Irish people were voting against, and offer them a new vote that is more clear and addresses their needs. I actually quite like Jon’s suggestion that the options need to be changed to something that people can more easily understand:
-Do you want Ireland to be part of the EU under the Treaty of Nice (with a brief explanation of what this means)?
-Do you want Ireland to be part of the EU under the Treaty of Lisbon (with an explanation of what that would mean)?
-Do you want Ireland to leave the EU?
This would give people a clearer idea of the choice they are actually being asked to make.
One thing is certain, 2009 is not going to be a fun year in Brussels. It’s going to be a chaotic, unworkable mess. It is a real concern at this point that if the EU is not able to fix its very serious structural problems in one form or another quickly, it risks completely disintegrating in a matter of years. In fact, Friday the 13th of June could be remembered as the day that destroyed the EU, the first death knell for an ambitious project that was just never able to get off the ground. Without legitimacy with the public, it is hard to see how the union is going to overcome its current unworkability. But when Europeans aren’t enthused and aren’t paying attention, how do you fix that public perception problem?
These are challenging times for Europe indeed.
Comments
Of course, the natural thing to do when a treaty is not written in an understandable way is to vote against it.
I think it is far worse to approve it without inderstanding it.
It is not a matter of unworkability of European Union. It is just a matter of preserving standards of life for a majority European Citizens.
And this cannot be more clear.
The BBC describe this as a defeat for Europe.
As a pro European Scottish Nationalist I disagree.
If Europe's self appointed political "elite" want to make any more headway then they have to start and embrace democracy.
What is the point of a European parliament if it has no power?
Why do we bother voting if it makes no difference?
This is a chance for Europe's politicians to at last prove that they are fit to lead. Level with us - tell us honestly and openly where you want to take us and then let us choose between you.
Oh, and an elected leader wouldn't be a bad idea either, At least we'd get to choose who is in charge and know what they stand for.
Mind you, fair play to Ireland's politicians for at least being the only ones with the balls to ask their people what they think.
Where does that leave all of the others?
Still, what does it say about a supposedly democratic bloc when a majority of 110k in a turnout of 1.5m decide on behalf of 490m?
Only in Europe.........
One last thing for now
Would the EU have the bottle to ask its people the following question in addition to the questions posed by John Worth above:
Do you think the EU would better serve its people as a trading bloc rather than becoming an unlected, self important, undemocratic quasi nation state beyond the control of its people?
Anyone?
I voted yes on Thursday and the result made me ashamed to be Irish. It really is a disgrace that the No won because people did not read and bother to understand it.
Anyway, hopefully we will vote again,
Enda,
Dublin.
Enda,
If you have read it and understood it, and voted "yes", then would you mind to explain what do you think on the EU Charter of Rights, the common defense policy, the new role of the European Comission and European Parliament, the definition of education, new majorities needed to pass laws, etc?
Do not tell me the ones who voted against it did so because where the ones who did not bother to understand it, please.
Gordon Brown is a twat, if this went to the British people he would be for the chop, and not before time. Good By to the European State, let the UK stand on its own two feet, and give the Great back to Great Britain.
I have to disagree with the author's point - that the government "did an inadequate job in educating the population about the treaty".
Yes, lack of understanding of the treaty was a very significant factor - according to an RTE poll in April, only 5% said they understood what the treaty was about, and this was the number one reason for voting against. That is clearly a huge problem.
However, the government launched one of the most extensive referendum campaigns by Fianna Fail (Cowen's party) in many years; the impartial Referendum Commission spent a whopping 5 million euro on their information campaign; handbooks on the treaty were sent out to 2 million homes. People were getting sick of hearing about it.
If the EU really wants its citizens to understand what it is doing, it needs a longer term strategy, instead of throwing legal texts at the public at the last minute. This is the responsibility of national governments, sure, but also of Brussels.
Couple of points:
ap, I think the key point is there in your last sentence when you noted that it was done 'at the alst minute.' No matter how much money was spent on teh campaign, it was launched pretty much just a few weeks before the vote, mostly because Ireland has been so preoccupied with its political scandals. I think it's safe to say that if the Ahern scandal the referendum vote would have been a yes, for two reasons. One, the governmetn would have had more time and energy to launch a vigorous campaign and two, the government would have had more legitimacy with the people when it urged them to vote for the treaty. In many ways, since most people didn't understand this treaty, their 'no' vote was a vote of dissatisfaction with the current government .
Brian McL, I think your ballot question would be a bit leading! lol. But it is a serious point. If the reform treaty is necessary for the EU's propert functioning, and the Irish people voted it down, then the next vote put to them should be whether they want to be part of the EU or not.
Lastly arnau, the polling results clearly show that a majority of those that voted no did not understand the treaty, and you acnowledged that with your previous comment. Perhaps you are right in your previous comment that it is better to vote against a treaty you don't understand than for it. But you can't deny that the Irish people by and large did not understand what this treaty is.