Irish referendum: a victory for reaction
June 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm (Europe, Jim D, campaigns, capitalism, democracy, immigration, left, politics, religion, socialism, unions)
First of all, let’s be clear: the Irish people have voted by a clear majority (53.6 to 46.4 per cent) to reject the Lisbon treaty. And as the treaty has to be ratified by all 27 EU member states, then the Irish vote should, under the EU’s own rules, kill off Lisbon once and for all.
Unfortunately, the European Commission president Jose Manuael Barroso continues to insist that the treaty is “alive” and calls upon member states to continue the ratification process. Here in Britain, Gordon Brown has made it clear that the bill implementing the treaty will continue its journey through the House of Lords next week. This breathtaking stupidity plays into the hands of the so-called Eurosceptics, portraying European integration as an undemocratic, elitist project, driven forward against the will of the people, by arrogant, corrupt and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats.
The democratic argument is as plain as a pikestaff: the Lisbon treaty is now dead and should be publicly laid to rest once and for all.
That’s the democratic position and it’s simply embarrassing to hear British government representatives like Ed Balls and the hapless, semi-coherent Jim Murphy trying to wriggle out of it, as both could be heard doing on Radio 4 today.
But the Irish vote was not a vote for anything even remotely progressive, and no-one on the left should delude themselves that it was. Here’s what the virulently anti-European Daily Mail has to say in welcoming the result:
“The people rejected the treaty for many of the same reasons 82 per cent of the British public have said no themselves in a poll for the Daily Mail last year.
“The Irish feared the Treaty would dilute their country’s power in fundamental areas. The vote was also swung by concerns over large scale immigration from Eastern Europe.”
The Mail then goes on to list “What Swayed Them”:
* New Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowan undermined the Yes Campaign when he admitted he had not read whole Lisbon Treaty
* Voters were baffled by the Treaty’s 346 pages of legalese. Ireland’s EU commissioner said no ’sane’ person could read it from cover to cover
* Resentment against 230,000 Polish immigrants blamed by many for job shortages. In less than a decade, non-indeginous population of Ireland has shot up from 1 per cent to 12 per cent
* Women voters were put off by a fear that men could be conscripted to fight in a future European Army
* Sinn Fein said that after struggling for centuries to escape British domination, Ireland should not accept a Brussels takeover
* Pro-life campaigners warned the treaty could put Ireland’s abortion ban under threat
* Irish farmers, fattened by decades of generous EU subsidies, warned their handouts would be drastically cut – with devastating effects for rural areas
* Business said the treaty said the Treaty would force Ireland to raise its 12.5 corporation tax
OK, that’s just what the Daily Mail says. But it’s backed up by overwhelming anecdotal evidence from reliable observers of all political sympathies. Here, for instance is Fintan O’ Toole, assistant editor of the Irish Times in today’s Graun:
“The other decisive factor (apart from a generalised distrust of the ‘political class’ – JD) was, paradoxically, the very incoherence of the no side. It was made up of people who actually can’t stand each other. There were rightwing Catholics who warned (against the advice of Catholic bishops) that Lisbon would open the way to legalised abortion and prostitution, and leftwing liberals who have fought bitterly against those same people in previous referendums on abortion and divorce.
“There were leftwing anti-militarists who warned that the treaty compromised Irish neutrality: we got ‘No’ stickers with nuclear mushroom clouds, as if Lisbon is a suburbof Armageddon. And, in the form of Libertas – a mysterious group that emerged from nowhere with a great deal of money to spend – there were people with strong ties to US military contractors.”
So there you have it: all the available evidence suggests that the Irish vote was motivated by incoherent resentment against ‘the political class’, fear of immigration, opposition to abortion, business’s fears about increased corporation tax, farmers’ fears of losing subsidies, and vague (unfounded) concerns about neutrality and conscription to a European army. None of them (apart, perhaps, from the first) particularly left-wing causes. And yet the majority of the “left” insists on seeing this as a “progessive” result. The Morning Star, for instance keeps trying to suggest that the vote was really about the Ruffert judgement and the Irish Ferries dispute - as though the majority of voters were motivated by concerns about Polish builders’ pay rates in Lower Saxony, or (only slightly more realistically) the sacking of Irish ferry workers and their replacement by Latvians…
In fact, both these anti-union decisions by the EU court were the result of the inadequacy of European integration to date, and the failure of the left and the unions to campaign for and achieve a levelling-up of standards throughout Europe. In any case, both those decisions are entirely irrelevant to the Lisbon treaty, and were most certainly not the issues at stake in the Irish referendum! Meanwhile, improved rights for agency workers and increased protection under the Working Time Directive have been forced upon the British “Labour” government by the EU’s Social Affairs Council, according to the TUC.
The history of the EU and its predecessors is full of examples of the so-called “left” making de facto common cause with the hard-right against European integration, and occassionally achieving ’success’ in various referenda as a result. Without exception these ’successes’ have proved to be ’successful’ only for the right, for racists, for the worst type of shyster businessmen and for reaction and islolationism in general. The anti-European left is a stupid, self-harming left: it needs to get a grip, jettison its irrational anti-Europeanism and start developing a positive programme for European integration.
P.S: These Irish leftists conclude that support for (or refusal to oppose) the EU is a “cargo cult“; in view of their own noticeable failure to put forward one single reason why workers should oppose the Lisbon treaty or, indeed, the EU itself, I’ll leave it up to readers to judge whether a rational, positive view of Europe, or the traditional Stalinist/”left”-reformist knee-jerk anti-Europeanism, represents a form of ‘cargo cultism’…
modernityblog said,
June 14, 2008 at 7:34 pm
50 odd percent, no, in a 50 odd percent turnout is about 25% of the electorate rejecting the Lisbon treaty, not exactly resounding and enthusiastic participation
I assume that the bureaucrats in Brussels will jiggle around for a while, then either resubmit simplified version, or do it in chunks, a bit here a bit there, achieving the end result, they are nothing if not persistent.
Voltaire's Priest said,
June 15, 2008 at 8:53 am
It certainly didn’t help that the mainstream parties in Ireland ran a campaign which was as dull as dishwater. What’s more, for all the attention given to Dustin the Turkey and Jim Corr, the No campaign actually used their new-found media access very effectively. Fainna Fail et al will need to get their act together if they intend to get public endorsement for the treaty (or some form of it) in a new vote.
Brian said,
June 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Victory for reaction is it? As an Irish citizen who voted against the Lisbon Treaty on the basis of it being progressively undemocratic and centralising power to Brussels, I find it very difficult to believe your opinion. If you look at the demographics of the people who voted against it, you’ll see that those who did were by and large working class people and liberals while the upper and comfortable middle classes voted in favour. Quoting from the “Irish” Daily Mail is also disingenuous-you might as well have quoted from the “Irish” Sun, my point being that both of these papers parent company’s are in Britain, where there is a profound amount of Euroscepticism. Most Irish produced newspapers were strongly in favour of the Treaty. The government ran an awful campaign because they regarded the Treaty’s ratification as a fait accompli; they presumed that it was unnecessary because the Irish people will do as they’re told. Which is exactly what EU politicians have been queuing up to do over the past few weeks. Instead of regarding this as a victory for reaction, maybe it should be seen as a case of people actually thinking for themselves and refusing to be bullied by the people who were elected to serve them (except, that is, members of the European Commission, who are accountable to no one, we ought to remember).
Jim Denham said,
June 15, 2008 at 4:16 pm
OK, Brian: all the commentators (including Fintan O’ Toole of the Irish Times) I’ve read are wrong to portray the “No” campaign and vote as confused and essentially backward: anti immigration and anti -abortion sentiment played no part. De Valerarite isolationism had nothing to do with it. There were no wild rumours about conscription into a European army, legalisation of prostitution or the abandonment of neutrality. Declan Ganley and the pro-business, anti-regulation ‘Libertas’ were an irrelevance.
OK: so *what* exactly *was* the real (progressive) basis of the ‘No’ campaign and the ‘No’ vote? I’ve read all the left ‘No’ websites I can find, and asked the question in several comments boxes. Answer comes there none. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
adammcnestrie said,
June 15, 2008 at 7:19 pm
The politics surrounding the European in Britain is different in kind from every other aspect of UK politics. Instead of a bored, disengaged electorate, somewhat suspicious of politicians, but broadly willing to trust them to get on with the business of politics we have a rabid media clamouring on behalf of the people for a referendum and screaming ‘Betrayal!’. Politicians can’t be trusted on this issue; elites are corrupt and power-hungry and they don’t see the world the same way as decent, ordinary people. Or so says The Sun and the Daily Mail. Politicians can’t be trusted and they aren’t up to the job; instead ordinary people on the basis of a simple majority vote should be the ones to decide whether this fiendishly complicated, legalese-soaked document should be approved. When it comes to one of the most complicated, technical decisions that needs to be made in politics they want to have the professional law-makers stand aside and surrender themselves to the amateurs.
Europe is the only issue in British politics where this sort of direct democracy, anti-elite populism has any real influence. And it’s because we’re suspicious of people we don’t know, people who aren’t like us. British politicians can be trusted with authority because shared experiences, values and traditions mean that we can rely on them to see things our way. Politicians from other countries and particularly EU officials in “Brussels” (a sort of hellmouth to the Eurosceptics) can’t be trusted with power because we don’t have that same guarantee that they will share our perspective. The great heat that one sees displayed on this issue and the nauseatingly insistent appeals for a referendum are an outgrowth of a very understandable, but lamentable, chauvinism. We like what and who we are familiar with; everything else we are suspicious of.
To read more on the European constitution link to my blog, just who the hell are we?, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/
Mark P said,
June 16, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Jim – you are reading the peculiarities of your British grouplet’s views on this subject onto Ireland without first getting a basic understanding of the situation on the ground in Ireland.
Immigration was not an issue in this campaign. There were dozens of Yes and No campaigns run over the last couple of months. Not one of them laid any emphasis at all on immigration. It didn’t feature on the posters, in the leaflets, in the newspapers, on the radio or on the television. The vast bulk of No activists were from the left or from republican backgrounds. There were two right wing No campaigns, but neither of them pushed immigration either. Similarly there were indeed no wild rumours about conscription. One of the These are issues that are being raised by embittered Yes campaigners after the vote in an attempt to sow confusion and delegitimise the No vote.
Fintan O’Toole was a vigorous campaigner for a Yes vote and his views have to be understood in that light. The entire Irish media establishment was campaigning for a Yes. They are horrified at the moment that what they regard as “knackers and bogmen” (ie working class people and rural voters) have embarrassed them in front of the assembled elites of Europe.
On the No side of the argument, every single public figure or elected representative was from the republican, dissident Green, or left camps. Every current or former member of parliament, every current or former MEP, every local councillor. On the ground, pretty much every activist was also from these organisations or traditions.
The two right wing No campaigns had neither elected representatives nor activists on the ground working for them. The Coir group (anti-abortion nutters) had a fair number of posters but nothing else and, particularly after the Catholic church came out and said that Lisbon didn’t effect abortion, their only real relevance to the campaign was that the Yes voting bien pensants in the media tried to use them to scare people into voting Yes. The Libertas organisation was more significant but again entirely lacked people on the ground. It had money and therefore media coverage however, but interestingly it campaigned mainly on issues that might be described as “democratic deficit” issues rather than on what appear to be the Thatcherite economics of its leaders.
This was a debate in which all of the mainstream neo-liberal political parties, IBEC (our equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry), the Catholic Church and the entire Irish based media lined up on the Yes side. The No side consisted chiefly of Sinn Fein, socialists, the leftish People’s Movement, dissident Greens and also, in a significant but subordinate place, a small number of right wing eccentrics.
The actual vote saw a clearer class split than in any Irish vote I can remember. Essentially the richer you were the more likely you were to vote Yes. The three richest constituencies in the country all returned thumping yes votes of over 60%. Nowhere else did. The poorest constituencies in the country returned votes of nearly two thirds No. IBEC was out telling its members that Lisbon laid the legal basis for the liberalisation of Health and Education and this was widely publicised.
Reading the British situation, where most No sentiment is indeed from the right of the political spectrum, onto the Irish one is crassly ignorant. And rummaging around the views of British eurosceptic newspapers and Irish liberal Yes campaigners for confirmation of your prejudices is downright foolish. The vote in Ireland was complex, but it was not about immigration or abortion. It was a combination of healthy anti-establishment feeling, concerns about sovereignty, concerns about militarisation, concerns about the privatisation of health and eduction, concerns about the undemocratic setup of the EU and concerns about the dilution of Irish influence within the EU, all mixed to varying degrees. Not all of these impulses are things that socialists should welcome, but others are and it was not in any way a “victory for reaction”.
Mark P said,
June 16, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Just to make something else clear:
Neither the left campaigns, nor the dissident Greens and the People’s Movement, nor Sinn Fein engaged in any joint campaigning at all with Libertas (let alone Coir). They didn’t hold joint meetings with them or joint press conferences, or put out joint propaganda. Joe Higgins (of the Socialist Party) and a number of other prominent No campaigners were vigorously critical of Libertas in the media and dismissed Coir as a bunch of cranks. One of the papers at the weekend even reported on their photographer’s failed attempt to get Joe Higgins and Declan Ganley (the man who led Libertas) to pose together for a celebratory photograph at the count centre.
You also wanted progressive reasons for a No vote, here are three for you:
1) The Treaty contains provisions about increasing European military strength.
2) It establishes a body to encourage and promote the European armaments industry.
3) It contains provisions dealing with what it describes as encouraging uniformity in the liberalisation of service provision. ie the privatisation of health, education and other public services.
Mbari said,
June 16, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Can Jim Denham go one post without calling something, or someone, Stalinist? I also don’t see how the very real need for a positive case for European integration means supporting whatever the EU bureaucrats put forward.
The “hard right” in Ireland, i.e. Youth Defence and organized racist groups, have little presence on the streets and even less in day-to-day politics. Their relevance to this campaign was as a way of smearing ‘No’ campaigners as crazy ignorant paddies. In a practical sense the mainstream racism (see the ‘racist referendum’ of a few years ago) and anti-abortion sentiment of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, etc., who were all on the ‘Yes’ side, matters far more than a few traditional Catholic nutters.
Jim Denham said,
June 16, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Mbari: here’s a post that will not mention the nasty word you don’t like.
I don’t live in Ireland and have no direct contacts there. Thus I am dependent upon the UK media for my information. I flatter myself that I am able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, but nevertheless my information is necessarily second hand. Mike P is also correct to state that my underlying attitude to the EU is based upon the AWL’s analysis rather than anything specific to the present situation on the ground in Ireland.
Nevertheless, all the serious commentators I’ve read have expressed the opinion that immigration and abortion *did* play a major part in the campaign. Some commentators over at the Irish-based (and pro-”No” ) “Splintered Sunrise” (where Mike has also contributed) agree with me and “Charliethechulo” about that, and dispute Mike’s assertion that the Catholic right / Coir campaign and Ganley’s pro-business Libertas played little role in the “No” campiagn. Mike seems to argue that because the majority of what calls itself the “left” in Ireland were pro -”No”, therefore – ipso facto- “No” was the correct position – a circular and self-fulfilling but ultimately illogical argument. I asked why any left-winger or worker should vote “No” and Mike comes up with three points – all of such vagueness that it is almost impossible to engage with them: “Increasing European military strength”? Wouldn’t this go ahead with or without Lisbon? And if it’s a counter-weight to US military power, is it necessarily a bad thing anyway?
“A body to promote and encourage the European armaments industry”: what, exactly? And even if that were true, is it the case that Lisbon would bring into being something that wouldn’t otherwise happen?
And does Mike *really* believe that Europe is the main source of the drive towrds the privatisation of public services. Even if he honestly believes it is, can’t he see that it’s quite possible to oppose and campaign against that without jumping on the anti-Europe bandwagon.
I repeat my basic and fundamental point: experience shows that *every* “left* anti-Europe / anti-EU campaign in Britain, Ireland or anywhere else, has *without exception* ended up benefitting the Right. The Left can achieve *everything* it wants to achieve in these situations by campaigning on the specific issues of privatisation, union rights, etc, etc: there’s simply no need for us to enter into a Faustian pact with the Right and business interests by opposing the EU and/or particular treaties like Lisbon.
Btw, Mbari, I do *not* advocate “supporting whatever the EU bureaucrats put forward”: I (and I imagine, the AWL) would advocate an abstention on Lisbon, not a “Yes” vote. I didn’t make that clear, so I don’t blame you for misunderstanding me.
Red Maria said,
June 16, 2008 at 11:16 pm
“Can Jim Denham go one post without calling something, or someone, Stalinist?”
Awww c’mon, don’t be such a wet blanket, it’s all part of the fun.
So where we? Oh yes, some relevant and progressive reasons for voting “no” to the Lisbon treaty. Many of them have already been rehearsed but one of the big ones has not yet been mentioned. It, or more precisely she, has a name.
MARTA ANDREASSEN.
Her case should be familiar to you all. If not, familiarise yourself with it pronto. It’s scandalous, literally scandalous.
Back in 2002 Andreassen, who was the EU’s chief accountant, went public with her worries that the EU was awash in “slush funds and fraud”. What happened to her? She was promptly sacked by EU panjandrum, Neil Kinnock.
Incidentally, I believe the EU’s accounts haven’t been signed off for ooh, something like 12 years now. Hardly surprising then, that the EU is not exactly a byword for financial competence.
Should it concern you? Of course it should. The vision of the EU as a bold force for the common progressive good is as seductive as contrarianism naughtily appealing but they don’t begin to address legitimate concerns about the EU’s problems with democratic and financial accountability.
modernity said,
June 17, 2008 at 12:01 am
it’s very easy to find fault with the EU, from dodgy accounting practices (no double entry bookkeeping at one time, I wonder if that’s still the case?), MEPs allowances to secretive policy sessions, you could make a very big list and always come up with good reasons why the whole EU project is corrupt.
but that wouldn’t change the political reality that the EU exists, is unlikely to go away and serious political people need to address that question
it seems to me that adopting many of the attitudes and slogans of the little Englanders is probably not the best way to foster international relations, rather activists should be arguing for Europewide trade unions, genuine internationals on the ground, treating Europe as a totality and an area within which activists should try to utilise the situation to put forward international policies, because the alternative is largely to play into the hands of local nationalists and the Right
that’s not to say the EU isn’t without fundamental flaws in its structure, methodology and implementation, even in terms of basic democracy it is worse than most nation states (the MEPs don’t really have much say as elected representatives, whereas unelected bureaucrats can decide on overall policy without too much reference to real people, as seen in the Treaty of Lisbon)
nevertheless, the EU is a reality and so activists are compelled to think how best to relate to it.