Bring out the red and yellow cards, and keep Lisbon debate free of porkies

IT WAS one of those panels studded with the famous, lucid and loquacious.

David Norris was in flying form, lashing between Rabelaisian humour and impassioned political exposition. Noel Whelan was at his analytical best. As you would expect.

What I hadn’t expected was that the guy sitting on my right, whose name was only beginning to be well-known, would be equal to, if not better than, the best on the panel. He was interesting, well-informed and blissfully short of political waffle. He treated the chairman, Vincent Brown, as an entertaining phenomenon rather than a personal threat. He didn’t hog the limelight, but did intervene to correct or build on statements made by others. He was – to use that current cliché – ay-mazing.

Dara Calleary was elected to the Dáil only in 2007, quickly becoming a Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment where he is responsible for labour affairs. The panel happened about four weeks ago. In the intervening time, he’s been on radio a couple of times about the Lisbon treaty referendum, up against much more experienced legislators. And has wiped the floor with them. He seems to be one of the half dozen people in this country who knows the Lisbon treaty like the back of his hand, and can swat false claims about it with specific reference to individual clauses.

Hearing him on one recent programme, I was reminded of a comment made coming up to one of the abortion referenda by a woman in her late 70s. She said that, in this instance, she wasn’t going to the ballot box. While it was her duty to vote in an election, in order to appoint a public representative to whom she would cede and entrust policy-making on her behalf, she did not feel that she should help decide an issue which did not and could not directly affect anybody of her age.

Now, purists would dispute her stance, but its relevance here is in relation to Calleary and the role of people of his age in the debate coming up to Lisbon 2.

If the political parties were to use more of their younger generation on that topic in the next few weeks, it would have a number of beneficial outcomes. First of all, it would lessen the danger that voters will vote no as a way of punishing the Government. If the usual suspects do all of the debating, Government and Opposition are going to be one minute yelling at each other about NAMA, and the next minute dancing in uneasy amity on Lisbon.

Were less familiar faces and voices to undertake the talking, some of the points made might actually be heard. And – whichever party you favour – it would give a much-needed opportunity for the next political generation to become better known. Fine Gael has several younger TDs who could refresh the debate. Lucinda Creighton is steeped in European affairs, is fearless in debate and already has a considerable profile. TDs like Gorey’s Michael Darcy are as able as Calleary on the issue. Sedulous, clever and cool, Darcy can argue any aspect of the treaty and, because he has a farming background, is particularly strong on that aspect of it. He also has the advantage of an unusual voice, likely to lead to “Oh, that’s your man from Wexford” recognition on the part of listeners.

This younger generation of TDs, senators and county councillors are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of the vote for more years than will the Cabinet or opposition front bench. It’s at least arguable, then, that they should carry a lot more of the debate freight, this time around, than they did last time. Let’s hear it from the green shoots.

Although the result of the last referendum did not come down to the age of the proponents of a yes vote, it was undoubtedly contributed to by a positioning error.

THE biggest flaw in the yes campaign during that first referendum campaign was their rolling out of Establishment worthies and heavyweights in the mistaken belief that the voting public would touch its forelock and realise that if all the big important guys were for this, it had to be a good thing. They didn’t touch any forelock.

Forelock-touching is even less likely this time around, when mistrust of all pillars of society is at an historic low. Yet the signs are that some elements of the “Yes” campaign have not learned that key lesson. Witness last week’s astonishingly counter-productive intervention by the chief executive of Intel. While crediting him with the best of intentions, the input raised the hackles of even committed yes voters. At the same time, it raised questions about Intel’s spend on the campaign and motivation for same, thereby providing a distraction unhelpful to those hoping the Lisbon treaty will be accepted second time around.

The oddity of this referendum is that mistakes on the yes side matter, whereas mistakes on the no side don’t matter at all. The very tone of a pro-treaty contribution, if it’s experienced as arrogant or patronising, can have a negative impact, whereas, at a time in Ireland where cynicism serves as wisdom, it’s easy to cast doubts – and that’s all the no side has to do. As we saw last time around, doubt-casting doesn’t require data. Emotive allegations will do.

Which leads us to the suggestion from Brigid Laffan of the College of Human Sciences at UCD. Speaking at the Merriman Summer School, Professor Laffan proposed that anybody who, in a TV or radio debate about Lisbon2, tells a porkie about the treaty should get a yellow card. (As a card-carrying academic, she did not, of course, talk about telling porkies. The yellow card was to be shown to “any group deliberately perpetuating falsehoods”.) “If they persist, they should receive a red card,” she added. “This would not muzzle debate but would ensure that we have a debate based on fact and reasoned argument. The debate on the first referendum was replete with examples of false or exaggerated claims.”

The yellow and red cards made for a great photo opportunity. The only problem is the qualifications of the referees. “Fact and reasoned argument” without added porkies would require that every TV and radio presenter hosting a debate on Lisbon 2 would not only understand the treaty, but be sufficiently familiar with it to be able to cut off at the pass any contribution based on something that isn’t contained within it.

That may sound challenging, but it would not greatly tax the brain of Pat Kenny, Matt Cooper, Miriam O’Callaghan, Neil Prendeville, Tom McGurk or George Hook if each boned up on the treaty and was checked out on their understanding by an independent expert.

It would qualify them for yellow and red card issuance. And make sure the public vote was based on clarity and reality, rather than myth, confusion, porkies and pig-ignorance.