Justice Donal Barrington on Declan Ganley and The Big Lie

THE LISBON TREATY
WHY I ’LL VOTE ‘YES’
By Donal Barrington

The Lisbon Treaty is a very dull document. It is easier to say what it will not do, than what it will do. It will not introduce abortion into Ireland. It will not introduce conscription into Ireland. It will not affect our corporate tax system. It will not automatically abolish ‘the Irish Commissioner’. It will not damage the rights of workers.

But what will it do?

The Name

Unfortunately, the name ‘The Lisbon Treaty’ tells us nothing. This is because diplomats have a habit of referring to treaties by the name of the town in which the participating governments signified their provisional agreement to the treaty. Likewise, the name ‘The Treaty of Rome’ tells us nothing, but we all know that the purpose of the Treaty of Rome was to establish the Common Market (later to become the European Union). The purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to organise “the functioning of the Union and determine the area of, the limitation of, and arrangements for, exercising its competences.” In other words, it is a treaty concerned with nuts and bolts. As such, it is understood most easily by civil servants, diplomats and lawyers. For that reason also, politicians who support it have found it difficult to explain to the general public. At the same time those who oppose it have had a field day, inventing all kinds of nightmarish scenarios which they say will result if the treaty is adopted.

A Constitution for Europe

Mr. McEvaddy and Mr. Ganley have each objected to the complexity of the Lisbon Treaty and each has stated that he could draft a Constitution for Europe in twenty-five pages. So could I. So could any first-year law student. But, would anyone accept it? It is significant that neither Mr. McEvaddy nor Mr. Ganley has been prepared to state what his twenty-five page document would contain. The devil is in the detail.


British and Irish attitudes towards Europe

To set the ‘No’ campaign on the Lisbon Treaty in context, it is necessary to say something of the difference between Irish and British (or should I say English?) attitudes towards Europe. Irish nationalists have traditionally looked towards Europe as a counter-balance to British dominance in Ireland and, over history, have, at various times, conspired with the Spanish, the French and the Germans. Europe held no threats for us. The British, by contrast, had a deep-seated fear of any power becoming dominant on the European Continent. To protect their independence, they put their faith in the Balance of Power principle whereby all the other European states allied themselves against any one of their number which looked liked becoming dominant. The balance of power undoubtedly protected British independence, but it also kept the Continent of Europe constantly at war. When, therefore, the Common Market was first mooted in the early 1950’s the British thought it was a revival of Napoleon’s continental system and decided to have nothing to do with it. Not only that, but they decided to organise a rival trading block. It was only when the rival trading block was a failure and the Common Market was a manifest success that the British decided, reluctantly, that they had no choice but to apply to join. But they always remained of two minds about the desirability of being a member of the Common Market. This is a pity because as members, they have made an outstanding contribution to the European movement. Nevertheless the facts remain that the Tories may take Britain out of the European Union, even if this involves Britain becoming a subordinate part of an American empire.

The Murdoch Press

Ireland is fortunate in that the British Press circulates widely in our country. Nevertheless it is necessary to introduce a word of warning. The British Press includes the Murdoch Press and the Murdoch Press has an agenda which is not necessarily related to the welfare of Ireland. The Murdoch Press harks back to the days of the British Empire and is totally opposed to the development of the European movement. This is all the more important because the Murdoch Press does not propagate its views through editorials, discussions and arguments the way other papers do. It makes its case through the way it presents the news. Thus it harps on endlessly about a vast bureaucracy in Brussels engaged in all kinds of strange anti-British practices, such as breeding straight bananas. In fact the European Commission employs approximately thirty-seven thousand civil servants in Brussels, compared with approximately one million civil servants employed by the British State, one million civil servants employed by the French State and approximately thirty-three thousand civil servants employed by the Irish State. The number of civil servants employed by Brussels and the number employed by Ireland are approximately the same, though Brussels administers the affairs of five hundred million citizens and Ireland the affairs of four million. In fact the number of civil servants employed by Brussels is approximately the same as that considered appropriate for a second ranking French city.

We now know from the journalist Sarah Carey that, at the time of the Lisbon Referendum, the most up-market of the Murdoch papers in Ireland – the Irish edition of The Sunday Times – had a policy of not publishing any news item which might appear favourable to the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Movement

John Hume has described the European Movement as the greatest peace movement in the history of the world. Jean Monnet, the principal founder of the European Movement, was a high official in the Allied administration during the first and second world wars. He was appalled by the slaughter of millions of men and women caused by those wars and was determined to work for a new political system in which another war between France and Germany would become impossible. That was the reason behind the European Coal and Steel Community, which involved France, Germany and others pooling the resources that they would need to manufacture weapons of war. For the same reason Monnet, Schuman and others sponsored the ‘European Defence Pact’ which was designed to unite the German and French armies. It was a move too far, too fast. Germany accepted it, but France rejected it. Monnet therefore decided to concentrate on creating a common market which would show Europeans that they had more to gain by working together than by fighting each other. He was so right. I am old enough to remember when Hitler spoke publicly about the Germans needing more “room”, about “the drive to the east” and about how his “patience was nearly exhausted” if any state failed to submit to his demands.

No European political leader speaks like that nowadays. That is because the European Community is based on compromise and negotiation and also because the European Community has succeeded in creating the most peaceful and prosperous community in the world. Mr. Ganley sees something sinister in this. He feels that we Irish may be seduced by prosperity into joining some form of European Superstate. But, perhaps, that remark tells us more about Mr. Ganley than it does about the European Movement.

Ireland in the 1950’s

Middle-aged people frequently compare our present economic problems with those we encountered in the 1980’s. But a more enlightening comparison is with the 1950’s. I can remember bare-footed children playing in Dublin’s O’Connell Street. I can remember the ‘Herald Boot Fund’, which was a charity organised by the Evening Herald newspaper to buy shoes for the poor of Dublin. I can remember the ‘Killiney Flit’, which was a term used to describe the situation where businessmen suddenly disappeared from their suburban homes to evade their creditors. I can remember houses in the poorer parts of Dublin where the occupants had simply closed their doors and gone, having no possibility of selling their houses. I can remember one year where emigration stood at 100,000 people. I can remember when the population of the Republic had sunk to 2.8 million, being the lowest figure since records began. I can remember an American Jesuit publishing a book called “The Vanishing Irish” in which he raised the question as to whether the Irish would be scattered all over the world and whether Ireland could survive as an independent entity.

All of this was happening despite the fact that Ireland was an independent Republic, with all the trappings of an independent state. It brought home to many of us the difference between political and economic independence. The Republic might be politically free, but it was still part of the British imperial economic system. Its role in that system was to provide cheap food for the British market, cheap labour for the British economy and ample recruits for the British Armed Services.

To solve the emigration problem you needed an expanding economy. But there was no way you could build an expanding economy on the basis of a market of 2.8 million people. It was these considerations which led to the Lemass-Whittaker revolution based on planning our resources, introducing universal free secondary education, introducing foreign capital and trying to find markets anywhere in the world. This was the basis of the first economic plan and I can remember the excitement when the national economy began to grow at the unprecedented rate of 2% per annum!

Ireland’s entry into the Common Market

By the 1960’s it was clear that the Common Market was going to be a great economic success and that Britain had made a major mistake in refusing to become a member. Eventually Britain applied for membership, but General de Gaulle, who didn’t believe that Britain was prepared fully to commit herself to the European idea, vetoed the British application. Ireland had applied for membership at the same time, but it was impracticable for Ireland to join without Britain. The farmers were wildly excited at the prospect of joining the Common Market. On the other hand, the Irish economic system, generally, was integrated into the British system and Lemass feared that a total break would be too dangerous. In the event, Irish membership of the Common Market had to be deferred until Great Britain and Ireland joined together in 1973. Despite two major setbacks occasioned by the oil crises of 1974 and 1978, the subsequent thirty-five years were to be years of extraordinary economic achievement. Ireland which, on entry, had been the poorest country in the Common Market became one of the richest. The population grew by almost 50% to over 4 million. Many of the exiles returned and Ireland changed from being a country of emigration into being a country of immigration. It appeared that the dead hand of the great famine, which had precipitated more than a century of economic decline, had finally been lifted and Ireland was in a position to take her place among the nations once again.

Cast Iron Legal Guarantees

Mary Lou McDonald, the Vice-President of Sinn Fein, says that in order to consider reversing our decision on the Lisbon Treaty, we should obtain certain “cast iron legal guarantees” from the European Union. That kind of language might be appropriate to use in relation to an ex-colonial power which you do not trust. It is not appropriate language to use in relation to partners with whom you have pursued an enormously successful partnership for upwards of thirty-five years.

Democracy and State equality

The Murdoch Press likes to frighten its British readers by referring to the European Union as a super-state or a federal state. In fact the European Union is neither. It is doubtful if it is a state at all. What it is is an instrument which a number of independent states use for pursuing certain common purposes. We all want the European Union to be as democratic as possible. For that reason only democratic states are admitted as members. For the same reason, we like to see the European Parliament strengthened and our own Parliament consulted. But we also wish to keep our state identity. For instance, if the European Union were a unitary democratic state, it might have a parliament of some five hundred members, to which Ireland would be entitled to elect four members. This would give us complete democracy, but would obliterate us as an independent state. Likewise, we could have a federal state with central powers being administered as of right by the federal government and local powers being administered by the member states. This may be a perfectly legitimate political aim, but the states of Europe are not ready for it yet. We all value democracy and we insist that a state must be a democratic state before it can be admitted to the Union. Yet we are not prepared to accept majority rule within the Union itself. There is a tension between the concept of democracy and the concept of state equality. The U.S. Constitution refers to a union between “The People” of the United States. The Treaty of Rome refers to a union between “The Peoples” of Europe. The distinction is of vital importance.


Competence

To understand the Treaty of Lisbon, it is necessary to understand the word “competence.” Under the Treaties the member states have conferred certain competences or powers on the Union. Some other competences they have shared with the Union. All other competences remain with the member states.

The ‘No’ Campaign

I will now turn to discuss some of the slogans used by the ‘No’ campaign in the recent Referendum and which carried the day for them. The first and most striking slogan was – IF YOU DON’T KNOW, VOTE NO. This is clearly a catchy slogan. But is it right? Some people would say that if you don’t know, you should not vote at all because, by voting ‘Yes’ you might be supporting some evil, whereas by voting ‘No’ you might be defeating some necessary reform. A better motto might be, “If you don’t know, find out”, but this may not be easy for lay people confronted with a complex legal document. In these circumstances perhaps one should do what one does in private life. For most of us the purchase of our house will be the most important property transaction into which we ever enter. Yet how many of us have read our title deeds or our mortgage document? We expect our solicitor to do this for us. We expect our solicitor to advise us on whether we should sign the relevant documents or not. In a representative democracy we elect political leaders to make political decisions on our behalf. We supply them with departments, staffed by lawyers and diplomats to ensure that they have the best available legal and diplomatic advice before making decisions. The Lisbon Treaty has been approved by twenty-seven governments (including our own) and has passed through twenty-seven different legal and diplomatic departments. No wonder it has taken seven years to draft and no wonder the countries which have adopted the Treaty are slow to return again to the drawing board.

In Ireland we have the additional factor that the vast mass of our TD’s and Senators (both Government and Opposition) support the Treaty.

In these circumstances it would be strange if the Treaty contained anything damaging to Ireland’s interests.

I turn to the next slogan – SAVE IRELAND FROM ABORTION. VOTE NO. Of all the slogans used by the ‘No’ campaign, this is the most ridiculous. Many years ago the Irish Government, to assuage fears on the abortion issue, persuaded our fellow member states to adopt a protocol whereby our fellow Europeans would leave the whole abortion issue, so far as Ireland is concerned, to be regulated solely by the Irish Constitution.

The protocol, which was drafted by the Irish Government, now appears as Protocol No. 35 of the Lisbon Treaty and reads as follows – “Nothing in the Treaties or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.”

Article 40.3.3. is, of course, the Article in our Constitution which regulates the right to life. We may keep that Article, or we may change that Article. It is entirely a matter for us. The European Union has nothing to do with it.

Turning now to the next slogan – SAVE YOUR SON FROM CONSCRIPTION. VOTE NO. I first noticed this poster while driving in the south of Ireland in the days before the Referendum. It was everywhere. I was shocked, as I thought this was something we had never seen in Irish politics before. Dr. Goebbels said that if a lie is big enough and you repeat it often enough, people will come to believe it. This was an example of Dr. Goebbels’ principle in operation. Insofar as it suggested that Irish youth were in danger of being conscripted into a European army it was a complete and total lie. The reason is very simple. There is no European army. The European Union has no competence to raise a European Army and there is no plan in the Lisbon Treaty to give them such competence.

In Ireland conscription is a matter for the Irish State and the Irish State, for historical reasons, is probably the last state in the world to want to introduce conscription.

But the posters did their work. Dr. Goebbels was proved right. The post mortem on the Referendum result proved that many people – particularly women – had voted against the Lisbon Treaty for fear of conscription.

The Iraq War had been raging for some time before our Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty took place. It was one of the darker periods of American and European history, when the American Republic appeared to be abandoning the principles on which the United States and the European Union had both been founded. The American Secretary of Defence, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, backed by Murdoch’s ‘Fox News’, denounced the “old Europe” of France and Germany, of Monnet and Schuman, which was wedded to peace and to law and welcomed the “new Europe” which was prepared to send its young men and women to join the United States in an imperial war in the Middle East. But even Donald Rumsfeld didn’t envisage the introduction of conscription.

Mr. Ganley did.

In a paper delivered by Mr. Ganley in the year 2006 and obtained by Mr. Paul O’Brien of the Irish Examiner from the Libertas website, Mr. Ganley lamented that the West hadn’t got the stomach to conquer the Middle East. He deplored the British pull-out from Iraq and the talk of an American pull-out. He thought a pull-out from Iraq would be worse than the American pull-out from Vietnam. He added – “The fact is that if Iraq and Iran were to be tamed and security risks eliminated full mobilisation for war would have to be carried out, complete with drafts, rationing and all of what Churchill referred to as the ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat’ that is taken to secure overwhelming victory.”

If the West hadn’t the guts to do this, he argued, it would have to learn to do without Middle Eastern oil.

It is clear that in this passage Mr. Ganley is envisaging total war against Iraq and Iran. We also know that Mr. Ganley is a British subject and an Irish citizen. But is he also an American citizen? In this call for conscription is he speaking on behalf of the United States? Or on behalf of Europe? Or on behalf of Ireland? Or on behalf of all three?

Libertas is a great name for a new political movement. But a little veritas would also be welcome. After all, liberty has its duties as well as its rights.

After the Referendum a German television company asked to interview Mr. Ganley and he consented. They arrived at his office and were surprised to find him seated under an American flag. Maybe they should not have been surprised because Mr. Ganley makes his money partly by supplying services to the American armed forces. Mr. Ganley, however, appeared startled by the arrival of the German camera crew and said he was not yet ready to commence the interview. He then proceeded to take down the Stars and Stripes, folded it and put it away in a drawer. The quick-witted German cameraman saw an opportunity and, unknown to Mr. Ganley, photographed the transformation of Mr. Ganley from American patriot to European patriot for the benefit of his German viewers.

But why was it necessary to hide the American flag?
Next slogan - SAVE OUR CORPORATE TAX RATE. VOTE NO. Sinn Fein opposed the introduction of the low corporate tax rate just as they opposed our entry into the E.E.C. and every single E.E.C. Treaty since. They regarded the low corporate tax rate as a tax concession given to wealthy corporations and they promised to abolish it as soon as they came to power.

It is ironic that they should now appear as its defenders.

At the time of our entry into the E.E.C. Ireland was not a heavily industrialised country. Unlike Britain and Germany it did not derive a significant portion of its tax revenue from corporation profits tax. It could therefore reduce the rate of corporation tax without any great sacrifice, on the principle that a small piece of a big cake is better than a big piece of a small cake.

Ireland had other advantages for a prospective American investor who wanted to obtain access to the wealthiest market in the world. It had a well-educated adaptable workforce, which spoke English and the younger members of which were also conversant with other European languages. Moreover the Government favoured foreign investment and the Irish Industrial Development Authority was at hand to seek out foreign investors and give them whatever assistance was appropriate.

But there is one other factor which we will neglect at our peril. Before investors will even consider investment opportunities or favourable tax regimes they will look for political stability. No doubt the United Kingdom could have matched many of the advantages which we offered to foreign investors. But there was one thing they couldn’t match. Ireland was fully committed to the European experiment, whereas the future of the United Kingdom within the European Union was always in doubt.

Whatever the reason, the giant American computer and pharmaceutical companies that wished to gain access to the European market came flocking to Ireland and, at one stage, American inward investment in Ireland came to 40% of all American inward investment in Europe, although Ireland contained only 1% of the population of the Common Market. This, more than anything else, was what gave birth to the Celtic Tiger economy.

But you may ask what has all this to do with the Lisbon Treaty. The answer is “nothing.” The reason is very simple. The European Union has no competence in relation to direct taxation within the member states and the Lisbon Treaty does not purport to confer any such competence on it.
The ‘No’ campaign has raised yet another false fear to frighten the Irish people into voting against the Lisbon Treaty contrary to their best interests.

Apart from the strictly legal reasons, there are political considerations which make it very unlikely that the European Union would try to interfere with our system of corporate taxation. There can be no doubt that many of our European colleagues feel that we have been a little bit too clever in the way we have manipulated our membership of the European Union with our national powers to secure a significant advantage to ourselves. Nevertheless, there are great political barriers to the European Union acquiring any competence to interfere with our corporate tax system. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, we would never agree to it. Secondly, the British and perhaps also the French and the Germans, who consider the power to impose direct taxation to be central to the political sovereignty of member states, would never agree to it. Thirdly, the new member states who hope to imitate what Ireland has done, would not agree to it either. No doubt Mary Lou McDonald will be looking for “cast iron legal guarantees” that the European Union won’t abolish our low rate of corporate taxation, but it is not appropriate – and hardly prudent - to ask a body for a cast iron guarantee that it won’t do something which it has no power to do.

The next slogan which I would like to refer to is – SAVE OUR COMMISSIONER. VOTE NO.

This was probably the most influential, the most misguided and the most damaging of the slogans used by the ‘No’ campaign. I say this because it was the Nice Treaty (which we had adopted) which provided for the reduction in the number of commissioners, with the result that Ireland, like every other state, would lose its commissioner for a time on a system of rotation. The Lisbon Treaty, by contrast, provided the means whereby this rigid rule of rotation could be relaxed. If, therefore, one wanted to retain the “Irish” commissioner, one should have voted for the Lisbon Treaty, not against it.

It is perhaps natural for ordinary people to assume that it would be nice if their country had “a friend at court” in a super-national institution. But the idea that each commissioner should concern himself primarily with the affairs of his own country is totally misleading and denies the whole purpose of the European Commission.




The Council

Before taking this matter any further it is necessary to say a word about the decision-making process in the European Union. The Council consists of ministers from the elected governments of the various member states. It exercises the executive or governmental function in the European Union. It is a political body and reflects the tensions between the principle of democracy and the principle of state equality. It is natural, in such a body, that each state should look after its own interests while, at the same time, it would, hopefully, be concerned with the common good of the Union. For instance, under the Lisbon Treaty the Council may be able to act by a “qualified majority” in certain cases, but this qualified majority must consist of at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing member states comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union.

The Commission

The European Commission is a totally different body. We have nothing like it in our system of government. Its concern is not with the affairs of any one state, but with the general interest of the Union. For that reason, it is required to be totally independent of all member states. The members of the Commission must be chosen from persons “whose independence is beyond doubt”. They are given a constitutional independence similar to that of judges. They are required to make a constitutional declaration that they will be independent in the exercise of their office and are expressly forbidden to “seek or take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.” There is a sense therefore in which there is no Irish, English or German commissioner. There are only European Commissioners. For a European Commissioner to favour Ireland, rather than other states, would be a violation of his oath and a breach of his duty as a commissioner sufficient to have him removed from office by the European Court. The debate therefore on the “loss of the Irish Commissioner” was a totally false one.

Many European states feel that the Union does not need twenty-seven commissioners. They argue that the competences of the Union are few and therefore there are worthwhile portfolios available only for a small number of commissioners. On the other hand, having one commissioner from each of the member states makes it easier for the government of each member state to communicate informally with the Commission and this may facilitate the development of Commission policy. As the law now stands the number of commissioners should be reduced to two-thirds the number of member states, as from the 1st November 2014. Under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, however, the European Council will have power, acting unanimously, to decide to alter this number of commissioners. It seems that the European Council has already debated this matter and that the intention, if the Lisbon Treaty is adopted, is to retain one commissioner from each member state. If however, we do not pass the Lisbon Treaty, the loss of the “Irish” commissioner is inevitable.

No doubt the leaders of the ‘No’ campaign will be looking for “cast iron legal guarantees” on this subject, but, having regard to the way they totally misrepresented the position of the Commission and totally misled the people, it might be more appropriate if they were looking for a fools’ pardon.

They have totally obscured the great diplomatic triumph which the small states have obtained in the composition of the new Commission. This is the acceptance of the principle of state equality in the composition of the Commission. Ireland has exactly the same representation as Germany, though Germany has almost twenty times the population of Ireland. This may have great significance for the future of the European Union and it might be most unwise of us to re-open this debate.

Workers’ Rights

There can be no doubt that the founders of the European Community believed that the free market and competition was the key to the extraordinary success of the American economy. But they never went in for the reckless, unbridled capitalism favoured by the neo conservatives in the United States (and by Libertas?). This is the unregulated capitalism which has destroyed the financial institutions of the world and which has been satirised as ‘the free fox in the free hen roost’. The founders of the European Community always had a social conscience and much of our most enlightened social legislation is derived from Europe. In recent times special problems were posed by immigrant workers to the Community and by workers from the poorer parts of the Community who moved to the richer member states where they might be prepared to work for lower wages, to be exploited and to threaten the living standards of workers native to the state in question. For that reason the Lisbon Treaty deals extensively with social policy.

Social Policy

Article 151 of the Lisbon Treaty refers expressly to the European Social Charter, signed at Turin on the 18th October 1961 and to the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. It then goes on to provide that to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 151, ‘The Union shall support and complement the activities of the member states’, to – ‘improve the working environment and protect workers’ health and safety, improve working conditions, improve social security and social protection of workers, protect the position of workers where their employment contract is terminated, provide information for and consult with workers, advance the representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, improve conditions for third country nationals legally residing in the Union, help integrate persons excluded from the labour market, provide for equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work, combat social exclusion and modernise social protection systems.’ Clearly this is a long way from the unbridled capitalism favoured by the American neo cons, but Sinn Fein still considers it sinister. It acknowledges, in one of its handouts, that “in the past much progressive social legislation has had its origin in the E.U.” But it considers that the easing of restrictions on decision making in the Council could be a threat to workers’ rights. Of course it could. It could be a threat to employers’ rights also, but many people would think that it is better that the Council should be able to make decisions, subject to various safeguards, than that it should remain in a state of perpetual paralysis.

Sinn Fein then goes on to say that “Articles 16 and 188 would provide the European Commission with the tools to progressively open up areas of European public services, such as health and education, to both internal market competition and international trade.”

Articles 16 and 188 deal with personal data and research!

The moral appears to be that you should deprive the Commission of the benefits of research and statistics because you would never know what they would do with the knowledge.

On the basis of this analysis, Sinn Fein recommends that “people should have no fear in rejecting this Treaty and sending it back for renegotiation.”

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty, supplemented by Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty, provides that the European Union will accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

For some reason this seems to upset some people. During the debate on the Referendum I heard a woman being interviewed on the radio about the Lisbon Treaty. She was obviously a good and well-intentioned person. She had no objection to other provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, but she could not see why we were imposing this “pagan” charter on ourselves and, for that reason, she was going to vote ‘No’.

In fact, of course, the European Convention on Human Rights was a reaction to the atrocities of the Second World War. It was the work of a group of politicians and academics who wished to assert our common humanity after the barbarism of the Second World War. The drafters included Catholics and Protestants, capitalists and communists, agnostics and atheists and many others. The great Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, who was one of the contributors, expressed his surprise at the fact that he was able to agree with people of so many diverse traditions on what the Convention should contain. The Irish Government made a significant contribution to the Convention and Ireland was one of the first countries to ratify it and to acknowledge that it was bound by it in its external relations. In the year 2003 we made the European Convention part of our domestic law. How then could the accession of the European Union to the European Convention adversely affect the Irish people in any way? There is one possible risk. Evil judges might use it in such a way as to extend the powers of the European Union and introduce all kinds of unspeakable practices! But the draughtsman of the Treaty has anticipated this possibility. The Maastricht Treaty provides that the accession of the European Union to the European Convention, “shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.” In other words, the European Convention regulates the way the European Union exercises its existing powers, but does not extend them.

I have stressed this episode of this woman’s fears because, during the election campaign, there were rumours that people were visiting the houses of voters and raising all kinds of scares. I had an experience myself, where a man told me that he was voting ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty because he had it “on the highest authority” that if we passed the Lisbon Treaty his son would have to go and fight in Iraq.

The Last Referendum

The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Council certain limited powers to propose an amendment to the Treaties without the necessity of a new Treaty. The ‘No’ campaign suggests that this is very sinister and suggests that, if we pass the Lisbon Treaty, we will be giving the European Council a free hand to amend the Treaties and that we will never have another Referendum. This is nonsense, for three reasons. First, no such proposal from the European Council can increase the competence of the European Union. Second, every such proposal must be unanimous, so that each member state has a veto. Third, every such proposal, though carried unanimously by the European Council, must be ratified by each member state in accordance with its “constitutional requirements”. This means that, if the proposal is inconsistent with our Constitution, it will be invalid unless ratified by the Irish people in a Referendum.

France and Holland

Libertas suggests that people should not vote for the Lisbon Treaty because the French and the Dutch rejected the European Constitution which contained many similar provisions to the Lisbon Treaty. This ignores the fact that the difference between a constitution and a treaty is a difference in kind. We do not know why exactly the French and the Dutch rejected the European Constitution, but it may well have been that they considered a constitution was a move too close to federalism. The fact that the people rejected a constitution does not mean that they rejected their government’s right to enter into a further international treaty. It is true that there are many similar provisions in the Constitution and in the Treaty, but that was inevitable, as both documents were in the nature of what lawyers call ‘consolidation acts’ (where the legislature repeals, amends, modernises and re-enacts a number of pre-existing pieces of legislation dealing with the same topic). If the Lisbon Treaty is passed, the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Nice Treaty will all have gone and we will be left with two treaties only – the treaty on European union (the Maastricht Treaty) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (the Lisbon Treaty). Here we should again refer to the principle of the equality of states. We have no more right to tell the French and the Dutch how to run their democracy than they have to tell us how to run ours.

The People Have Spoken

The Vice-President of Sinn Fein tells us that the people have spoken on the Lisbon Treaty and that the duty of the Government is to see that the other twenty-six states of the European Union accept the decision of the Irish people. I am most impressed by this. For most of my life Sinn Fein has refused to accept the decision of the people of the Irish Republic contained in the Constitution of Ireland. I am sure that the widows and children of police and army officers murdered by the I.R.A. for defending that Constitution will be even more impressed. But I wonder when did this new policy of respecting decisions of the people of the twenty-six counties come about?

However, no matter when it came about, one must welcome it. But one should enter a word of warning. Sinn Fein should not, in their new enthusiasm for constitutional government, allow themselves to be swept off their feet. We hold the people to be sovereign, but not necessarily infallible – especially when, as in the present case, there is clear evidence that they were deceived and much evidence that they were misled.
One of the attributes of sovereignty is the right to change one’s mind. In the old days of absolute monarchy the sovereign frequently changed his policy and those thought to have given bad advice to the monarch at an earlier stage, frequently came to a sticky end. One trembles to think of what would have happened to those shown deliberately to have deceived him. For instance, had Libertas, in the time of Henry VIII, attempted to deceive the king the way it deceived the Irish people on the conscription issue, Mr. Ganley would have been very lucky to have escaped only with losing his head. But, fortunately for us (and for Mr. Ganley!) we live in more civilised times and it may be sufficient to draw the deception to the attention of the Irish people and to let them vote again.

There have been many cases where democratic sovereigns reversed an earlier decision. We, for instance, did it in the case of divorce. Rhode Island was the first of the thirteen American colonies to revolt from the British and to declare an independent state. But for a number of years it refused point blank to join the American Union. Eventually, however, it concluded that its interests would be better protected within the Union than outside it and it became the thirteenth state of the United States of America. But the most dramatic example of a democratic sovereign state reversing itself occurred in ancient Athens, during the Peloponnesian War, in the year 428 B.C. Athens was, of course, the mother of democracy and the type of democracy was direct democracy, or government by town meeting. During the Peloponnesian War the city of Mytilene on the Island of Lesbos, had revolted against Athenian rule. The Athenians laid siege to it by land and sea and ultimately the rebels offered to surrender and asked for terms. The matter came before the Athenian Assembly, where the mob orator Cleon fanned the flames of hatred occasioned by war and persuaded his fellow citizens to pass a resolution providing that all men of military age in the rebel city should be put to death and all women and children sold into slavery. A ship was immediately sent to Lesbos with orders to the Athenian commander to carry out this barbarous sentence. However, over night, word spread among the citizens of Athens as to what their Assembly had done in their name. On the following day they arrived in droves at the Assembly and demanded that the resolution be rescinded. Cleon argued that this was impossible – that the people had spoken. But he was overruled. The resolution was revoked. A second ship was sent to Lesbos with the revocation order. It was touch and go, because the first ship had a twenty-four hour start on the second one. But the second ship arrived in time to prevent a massacre, to save the women and children and also to save the reputation of Athens and of democracy.

A Motley Crew

The leaders of the ‘No’ vote are a motley crew. They include the League of Empire Loyalists, Libertas, Rupert Murdoch, Sinn Fein and a few European Fascists. They include the lackeys of a faded empire and would-be lackeys of a new one. One might well ask how on earth did Sinn Fein manage to get itself involved with this crew. The truth is that Sinn Fein played cynical politics with the European Movement. They were never really against it and they were never really for it. When all the Constitutional political parties were in favour of Europe, Sinn Fein, as a small political party, thought the best way of obtaining publicity and drawing attention to itself was by opposing the European Movement. When it finally became convinced that the great mass of the Irish people were in favour of the European Movement it changed tack and decided to pose as the Irish champion in Europe, which would obtain for Ireland a better deal than the government had obtained. Unfortunately for them, to fulfil this role convincingly, you have to know what you are talking about. Sinn Fein claimed to have read the Lisbon Treaty. If so, they singularly failed to understand it.

Let’s take a glance once more on the arguments of the ‘No’ side. The arguments on abortion and human rights are nonsense and should be ignored. The argument on conscription is a blatant lie. We are used to politicians exaggerating their own virtues and denigrating those of their opponents. We take this as part of the cut and thrust of political life. But to propagate a blatant lie is something different. Presumably before the poster on conscription was issued some committee of Libertas chose the slogan, provided the funds and directed that the poster be put up all over Ireland. If they knew anything about the Lisbon Treaty they must have known that the poster was false, yet they have never withdrawn it and never apologised. What were they at? Where did their funds come from? What was their real agenda? Until we know the answers to these questions we cannot trust anything they say. By contrast Sinn Fein was merely incompetent. They were totally wrong on the issue of corporation profits tax. They totally misled the people by inviting them to vote ‘No’ in order to ‘Save the Irish Commissioner’, whereas the only way to save the Irish Commissioner was to vote ‘Yes’. Worse still, they totally failed to understand the purpose of the European Commission and especially the importance to a small country like Ireland of having an independent commission, which put the interests of the European Union above that of any of the great powers. They are not safe guides for the Irish people either.

Conclusion

The Lisbon Treaty is another hesitant step on the road towards European union. It contains no threat to our democracy or to our values. It is recommended to us by our Government and by the vast mass of our elected leaders, both Government and Opposition. We may or may not like the Government, but that is a matter for another day. In making our decision on the Lisbon Treaty we should look to our own self interest and to that of our children.

We are a small country on the fringe of Europe. We are a country which is probably more dependent on exports for its survival than any other country in the world. We need to export approximately eighty per cent of what we produce. This is a much higher proportion of what we produce than in the case of the great trading nations, such as the United States, Great Britain, Germany, China or Japan. The European Union has opened to us the largest and wealthiest market in the world. If we are to survive and prosper as a community we must grasp this economic opportunity.

During the debate on the Referendum the role of the multi-national companies was raised. It appears to me, that in discussing the multi-national corporations, one should divide them into two classes, what I will call the ‘itinerant corporations’ and the ‘embedded corporations’. The itinerant corporations come here because we can offer them certain services more efficiently and more cheaply than in other parts of the world. As long as this continues they will remain and as soon as a cheaper supply of labour or services becomes available elsewhere in the world, they will depart. This is simply a fact of economic life and there is not much we can do about it. We welcome them while they are here and when they go, they go.

I would contrast the itinerant multi-nationals with what I will call the “embedded” multi-nationals. These are the great computer and pharmaceutical corporations which have settled in Ireland, partly because of advantages we can give them, but primarily because they want to be within the European Union to sell their goods there. Besides giving highly skilled and well-paid employment, these companies have transformed Irish life. In the 60’s we thought we were creating a revolution when we introduced free secondary education. Now the talk is of third-level and fourth-level education of ‘up-skilling and the knowledge economy’ and of fruitful partnership between these corporations and our universities and schools of technology.

But we should remember that while these companies have to be, to achieve their purposes, within the European Union, they don’t have to be within Ireland. They are here because we offer them certain advantages and, being here, I am sure they would be happy to stay here. But their investment in Ireland, like all investment, pre-supposes political stability. I would not be surprised if, in the event of our finally rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, these companies would start reviewing their position in Ireland.

It is worth noting that while we have been engaged in debating the nonsense which the leaders of the ‘No’ campaign have put before us, others, in Eastern Europe, as is their right, have been preparing to imitate the way the Irish built up their economy within the European Union. Those of you who follow CNN News will have noted that the Poles are carrying on a huge marketing campaign advertising Poland as the best place within the European Union for American investment. Mr. Ganley is not above attempting to frighten Irish workers with the prospect of droves of low-paid workers from Eastern Europe coming to Ireland and threatening Irish jobs. But I wonder is it better that the Poles should come here looking for work, than that we should go there looking for work.

The European Union is a partnership between friendly states. If we adopt the Lisbon Treaty, it will, hopefully, introduce a more efficient and humane method of running the European Union. But otherwise we will notice very little change. It will not introduce abortion. It will not introduce conscription. It will not deprive us of our corporate tax system. We will keep our commissioner and the rights of workers will be better protected. On the other hand, if we vote ‘No’ we will definitely lose our commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Nice Treaty. We will have frustrated the attempt of our partners to introduce a more efficient way of running the Union. We will have alienated our friends in Europe. We will have called in question our commitment to the European Union and will have raised a question as to whether Ireland is the best place in the Union for foreign investors to do business.

For these reasons I intend to vote ‘Yes’.