If Lisbon II is to be carried the yes side must start playing as a team

There is another bastion that needs to come under scrutiny – the Supreme Court This most august, overriding authority is unelected and unaccountable. Its judges are probably our most learned lawyers. However, they have handed down judgments in relation to referenda that almost render the process unmanageable

TODAY the European Council should seal the deal on the text we will be asked to vote on again in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

Last December, EU leaders agreed an outline deal with the government whereby the referendum would be rerun. French president Nicolas Sarkozy brokered clarifications for Ireland which are in the form of legally binding guarantees, without involving re-ratification of the treaty in the other 26 member states.

The EU has shifted ground on the composition of the commission. Now a political undertaking has been given that each member state will retain a commissioner. This resolves a key argument of the no campaign. Smaller countries with top candidates will benefit most. The debate about the size of the commission is similar to our own controversy about junior ministers. If there are too many, you devalue the currency. Inevitably some commissioners will end up with peripheral portfolios.

The legally-binding guarantees will not constitute a protocol. They may be put in some future treaty, perhaps after the accession of Croatia. We are set to receive firm pledges in relation to the retention of our low corporation tax.

Our neutrality will be enshrined through opt-out provisions for Ireland. Other commitments will relate to the right to life, ethics, the family and education. Some disagreement has apparently arisen in relation to clarification on workers’ rights.

In this new context, will we affirm the treaty? Opinion polls over the past several months have shown a majority solidifying in favour of a yes vote. The latest poll indicates 54% yes. When the “don’t knows” are extracted and allocated proportionately to the “do knows” there is a suggestion of 2:1 in favour of the referendum.

The last campaign proved how fickle and unreliable are such snapshots of opinion. They provide no basis for complacency on the yes side.

It’s time to get real about referenda in this country. Public opinion has rightly raged against the deferential status that was previously accorded to pillars of society such as governments, politicians, churches and clerics. There is another bastion that needs to come under scrutiny – the Supreme Court. This most august, overriding authority is both unelected and unaccountable.

Supreme Court judges are probably our most learned lawyers. However, they have handed down judgments in relation to referenda that almost render the process unmanageable. I refer to the McKenna and Coughlan judgements. The former imposed limits on state political funding for any one side of a referendum campaign. This spawned the headless chicken of the Referendum Commission. Its publications have often been so bland as to be meaningless. Instead of providing factual clarity it has added further confusion at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

The Coughlan judgement provides a template for the broadcast media in covering a referendum campaign. The Broadcasting Commission (BCI) requires 50% equal air time to both sides of the argument. This is irrespective of the topic or logic.

Little wonder the Government is shying away from a children’s rights constitutional amendment by way of referendum. Justices of the Supreme Court were probably never in a broadcast studio, put up a poster or participated in any referendum campaign. Their rulings are impractical and make the process hazardous. Given these realities, it is difficult to predict with certainty the outcome of our vote this autumn.

The last yes campaign was shambolic. Between Bertie’s lap of honour and Cowen’s coronation, the Government allowed the no campaign to develop irreversible momentum. This was compounded by the inter-party political bickering on the opposition side. Ungracious remarks by Cowen led to a fit of pique by Fine Gael.

While the Labour leadership advocated a yes vote, their organisation was apathetic. The Greens faced in both directions at the same time. Sinn Féin developed their brand of nationalism effectively to sell negativity against Europe. It was left to individuals such as Ruairi Quinn, Garret FitzGerald and Pat Cox to man the breaches on behalf of the yes side. Ultimately, the political establishment delivered too little too late.

The trade union movement tried to secure additional workers’ rights and ICTU failed positively to endorse the treaty. Latent resentment against immigrant workers became a potent issue in working class estates. This was instrumental in a no vote in larger cities.

Rural Ireland was subject to extensive confusion. The IFA sought to leverage the EU stance on the GATT/WTO being adopted by Commissioner Peter Mandelson. This IFA tactic backfired. Despite last-minute yes advertisements, the damage had been done.

If the treaty is to be adopted in Ireland, with our legal revisions, the yes side must start playing as a team. There are complaints that the Government is still not fully involving the opposition parties. A combined approach by the main parties is fundamental to the campaign. The biggest impediment to a yes result is the palpable rejection, unpopularity and even contempt for politicians across the country. The recent elections provided a kicking for the Government parties and the emergence of protest politicians whose core value is to oppose anything emanating from the Dáil chamber or Government Buildings.

There are two schools of thought as to the effect of the economic recession on the referendum. Either we will be so concerned about our economic future that we will turn towards Europe or it will be used as a further protest vehicle by voting no.

On June 12, 2008, the Lisbon vote became a magnet for every form of disaffection. Unemployment, dropping living standards, Government cutbacks, tax hikes, fuel prices, fishing woes, farm incomes and even Dustin’s debacle in Eurovision were all contributory factors to a national mood of antagonism.

OUR newfound wealth was a mirage, based on a credit bubble and false property values. We now face the harsh reality of earning a living through exporting goods and services abroad.

The EU project has its definite defects. Enlargement eastwards is not good news for Ireland. Brussels bureaucracy had got out of hand. There is little appetite for a federal, integrated Europe. The continent can never be monocultural. My consistent view has been that our ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is not primarily about its contents, rather Ireland’s relationship with the EU.

We suffer from the disadvantage of a small population base (less the 1% of the EU total). Our location couldn’t be worse – the most peripheral westerly island. We depend on foreign direct investment for employment and output.

Our manufacturing base of 90,000 jobs is predicated on multinational investors and markets, especially in the sectors of pharmaceuticals and information technology. They like our low corporate tax rate and highly skilled labour force, but they are primarily here because of our place in Europe.

The central questions are whether Europe would proceed without Ireland and can Ireland prosper without being at the heart of Europe? The train is leaving the station. We have to decide whether we are going to stay on board.