Legal assurances not enough to reverse Lisbon vote

THE Government has managed to spin a successful story, detailing their valiant efforts to defend the rights of the Irish electorate at the recent European Council summit by securing legally binding assurances on all sensitive issues for Ireland.

But why didn’t the Government care about the needs of Irish voters before the Lisbon referendum instead of in its aftermath?

Why didn’t the Government invest more in explaining the issues contained in the Lisbon Treaty before the no campaign capitalised on the information vacuum by perpetrating lies?

The Taoiseach coasting home to Dublin, acting as if he had battled courageously in the name of Irish interests, is nothing short of a masquerade.

The key point is this: the concerns expressed during the Lisbon referendum in relation to taxation, military neutrality and abortion were largely based on misinformation. The reality is that these issues are either unaffected by the Lisbon Treaty or have protocols already attached safeguarding Ireland’s position.

Protocol 35 to the present Lisbon Treaty protects Ireland’s stance on abortion, for example. Having said that, I nevertheless support the assurances attained if they help to settle the anxieties of Irish voters prior to any second referendum.

My party, Fine Gael, has recently made a number of concrete suggestions following a sub-committee’s analysis of the Irish no vote.

With these proposals, Fine Gael is attempting to address the root causes of the no vote. Legal assurances will not be enough for the electorate to vote yes next autumn. There must also be a meaningful engagement with the people to rebuild understanding of and support for the European process.

Voter research after the referendum revealed a very low level of public understanding of the role and functions of the EU. This disengagement is a major challenge for both the EU and national governments. Among other suggestions, we propose a constitutional change to allow future international treaties to be referred to the Supreme Court when they are agreed to establish which provisions should be put to the Irish people.

Such a mechanism would tease out the issues in need of debate in Ireland; it would let the electorate have their say and would finally allow Ireland to ratify the spirit of such treaties overall.

We also propose the establishment of a new constitutional office of EU citizens’ officer. This appointee would act as an independent advisory officer on all aspects of EU legislation, including its transposition into Irish law.

In conclusion, binding legal assurances are one thing but regaining the trust of the Irish electorate is another. I have very little faith in this Government’s ability to achieve a positive result in any second referendum.

Colm Burke MEP

Washington Street

Cork