Now more than a month ago, the result was declared of the 2 October poll was declared, with 1,214,268 votes in favour to 594,606 against, a result of 67% in favour. This was far beyond what most optimistic Yes campaigners had dared to have hoped for and sent a very clear signal that Ireland was favourable towards the institutions of the European Union.

I think it must be acknowledged that the victory would not have been so resounding had it not been for the change in our economic fortunes. I don’t think many actually expected new jobs as a direct result of Lisbon; whatever the simplicity of some of the posters, people understood the broader benefits the EU brought to our economy and would do so to come. As both business and union leaders made it clear that a negative vote would hurt us economically, the public felt little desire to take that risk.

But the real difference in terms of campaigns between this year’s and that before the June 2008 referendum was the extent to which it was non-political. Ireland for Europe was a broad national network, with decentralised organizations around the country, composed of volunteers, many of whom had never campaigned before, coupled with a strong team in the head offices by the Harcourt station. There was also the difference with issue-based groups, such as Women for Europe, The Charter Group (of trade unionists supporting the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and Christians for Europe, as a few of the many such examples.

The political parties also had much better campaigns. Last year, some of the parties used the referendum unashamedly as a dry run for the local elections, with posters of councillors and a small sign to vote Yes in the corner. This time around, only the leaders of the two opposition parties were displayed in any prominent way on posters, with other messages as well. The official support of the Green Party this year was also welcome.

The opposition campaign to Lisbon had considerably diminished since the year before. While each the groups opposed last time did fight again, their supporters in the media last time around were either mute or had outright reversed their opinion to call for a Yes vote.

The mood of the country had definitely changed in 15 months, reflected in the number of those who took part in the campaign and the result itself, the largest number in absolute terms of those to have voted for a European Union Treaty. Granted, the electorate has grown, and the percentage in favour was higher in 1972, 1987 and 1992, but this was also the highest turnout at a European referendum since the Accession Treaty vote in 1972, and the highest turnout at any standalone referendum since the vote on divorce in 1986.

As soon as the vote was passed, politics continued, as parties focused on John O’Donoghue’s expenses and as unions, business and the government, united on Lisbon, turned to their disagreements on how best to tackle the deficit in the public finances. Life did go on, but this clear affirmation in favour a future committed to the European Union from the Irish people on 2 October will not be forgotten, as those across the country came together this past summer for this common purpose.

OPINION: The Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty is a good one for British Eurosceptics only if it is a No vote

IT WAS British Conservative prime minister Lord Salisbury who grandly announced in a debate in the London parliament at the end of the 19th century that he would “no more give the vote to the Irish than to the Hottentot”. That vulgar imperial Old Etonian racism has today been replaced by a crude Old Etonian anti-Europeanism in the ruling circles of the English dominant classes and especially in the Conservative Party.

Far from thinking the Irish unfit to vote, much of England’s elite think the Irish people’s vote is a capital thing – provided of course they use it to vote down the Lisbon Treaty. In London’s club land, in the editorial offices of many newspapers and in the massed ranks of the Conservative Party, there is a fervent hope that the Irish will do the right thing for their long-gone rulers and vote No to Europe.

If the Irish vote No, they will be the heroes of the hour for Rupert Murdoch, for former pornographer Richard Desmond, who owns the Daily Express , and for the Barclay Brothers, the offshore owners of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. The Daily Mail and the Sun , whose rabid anti-Irish columnists and cartoons have been a feature of British “journalism” these last decades, will find nothing but praise for the sagacity of the fine men and women of Ireland if they vote No.

(Article can be found in The Irish Times, Sept 29th)

Ireland’s Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney has launched a blistering attack on Irish opponents of the EU Lisbon Treaty, accusing them of manufacturing fear in the referendum campaign. The poet said that if Ireland votes “no” again, the Republic and its people “will have lost ourselves in the modern world”.

In an exclusive interview with the Observer on his views on Europe and the referendum on 2 October, Heaney said the loss for Ireland from a “no” vote was “inestimable”. He said: “I was in Italy when the first referendum came in, and I was distressed for Ireland in Europe because of the kind of refusal of commitment after decades of benefit. It is inestimable, the loss of influence, status and trust that occurred with a ‘no’ vote: it is palpable and real.”

IN THE late stages of last year’s Lisbon campaign, a rumour emerged that Irish people would be conscripted into a European army if the treaty were adopted.

It was a viral story that started from the ground up. Like the phenomenon of Don’t Knows plumping for a No vote, its effect came on to the radar of the national media (and the Yes side) only in the closing days before polling, too late to counter it.

At the comparable phase of this campaign, in a sample of four residential estates in key constituencies, there is strong anecdotal evidence that the attitudes on the ground are markedly different this time.

Full article here

Whatever side of the debate you are on, do please get out and vote.

Continued membership at the heart of the European Union will help us, North and South, to grow together and to face in partnership the huge economic, social and environmental challenges of the years ahead. This is enabled by our common membership of the European Union and enhanced by the new possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty.

A second No would bring Ireland’s continued membership of the Union into unknown territory. It would further damage Ireland’s reputation and its economic prospects, with negative knock-on effects for the North’s economy.

See the whole letter here

Update: While Paul Muldoon was not a signatory to this letter, he asked that his name be associated with these calls for a Yes vote.

Taking to the Streets

The polls are very encouraging and many on the ‘yes’ camp are quietly confident that we’ll get Lisbon ratified. I believe that polls are pretty meaningless and that the only poll worth a penny is the one taking place on Friday.

When canvassing on the streets, I have been struck by both people’s desire to learn more about the Treaty and their fury with Fianna Fáil. The desire to punish Brian Cowen et al is palpable. While I can definitely sympathise with this sentiment, there are times when one needs to put the national interest first.

The time will come when we can make our judgement on the government – now is not that time. Governments and politicians will come and go but the implications of our vote on Friday will not.

All Ireland Final

Our decision on Lisbon will determine Ireland’s economic and political future for generations to come. We need to make the right decision and we need to vote ‘yes’. We need to stay on the streets, we need to keep canvassing and we need to continue to fight every lie with the truth.

Fighting Lies

The objective is a United States of Europe with a European army. Irish people will be compelled to fight whatever wars the European super-powers decide to wage. Neutrality will go and compulsory military service for our youth will be introduced.

This was not in reference to the Lisbon Treaty, though. This is a from a pamphlet from 1971 (PDF), in reference to the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which were to vote on our accession to the European Economic Community in 1972.

Sinn Féin has never been pro-EU, whatever its claims, this year or on other occasions. Each Treaty we have voted for was in Sinn Féin’s terms the last stand for Irish neutrality and independence. Unless we believe that they were right on every occasion since 1972, warning of militarization again in 1987, 1992, 1998 and 2002, why should we credit their fears on this occasion?

Their adamant opposition to the difficult to explain, given the European Union’s commitment to the peace process. In 2007, Bairbre De Brún said of the continuing benefits Northern Ireland has received from Europe,

I will be taking the opportunity to encourage the Executive to further develop their working relationship with the European Union. I will also highlight the importance of balanced regional development in the time ahead.

The EU has played an important contribution in underpinning the peace process and through various funding streams such as the Peace Programmes, Structural Funds, the Social Fund and funding for Rural Development. We must ensure that all potential funding streams are fully examined.

What is also interesting from the point of view of the peace process is how strongly Sinn Féin dismiss the legitimacy of the European Council Agreements of December 2008 and June 2009 guaranteeing Ireland’s right to a Commissioner and acknowledging Ireland’s right to decide laws on matters of taxation, education, the life of the unborn and neutrality. When it came to the Belfast Agreement, Sinn Féin celebrated the fact that this had the security of being lodged with the United Nations, yet when it comes to these guarantees, with the same international legal backing, they give them no similar standing.

Sinn Féin’s attitude towards Europe has been, since the 1970s, consistently both inconsistent paranoid. Each Treaty is a step towards the military industrial superstate, despite their acknowledgement of the benefits Ireland, particularly in the North, has received from the EU.

Sunday Papers

The Sunday Independent strongly backed the Treaty, calling on the Irish electorate to:

“respond in kind with an enthusiastic and emphatic endorsement of Lisbon and of Europe.”

While the Sunday Business Post was slightly reticent in supporting the Treaty outright, it argued that the uncertainty a no vote would bring would have disastrous consequences for Ireland.

“The uncertainty created would almost certainly increase for us the cost of borrowing on international markets and limiting the availability of funds.”

The Sunday Tribune described how Lisbon will secure a balance between protecting Ireland’s sovereignty and being part of positive European project:

“This treaty does not seek to infringe on the autonomy of individual nations to legislate for their own people. But it does enhance a vision, one of peaceful co-habitation of this planet in which the health, wealth and wellbeing of people are paramount.”

It is highly encouraging, after much debate and critical analysis, to see the country’s leading editors backing the Lisbon Treaty.

As I watched this, I found that nearly every point he made could be disputed, if not refuted. Below is a critical analysis of his case.

He begins by stating that this is the same European Constitution that the French and the Dutch rejected, and that we rejected last year, ignoring the key symbolic changes made to the Constitutional text to remove the statelike trappings which were of such concern, and in the Irish case, it ignores the European Council of December 2008 to agreement to keep our Commissioner and the June 2009 agreement with the legally-binding guarantees.

He then says that the Lisbon Treaty is not about jobs or the economy, arguing that it would be a handicap to us, as we’re moving several key areas to be decided at EU level. He’s in a small minority on this. 90% of independent Irish economists in a recent Indecon survey, with no connection to the government, unions, employer groups or the media, believe a Yes vote is important for our recovery. This report looks at a number of reasons, mainly related to the effects of the perception of being eurosceptic on both funds from Europe and whether multinationals choose to locate here.

Mr Ganley goes on to disparage claims that decisions in the boardrooms of America would be affected by a No vote, citing The Wall Street Journal. But one Murdoch-owned newspaper is hardly enough to make that point. Fair enough, Mr Ganley would argue, he’s since made use of an article by Wolfgang Munchau of the Financial Times, who had strongly supported the Lisbon Treaty last year, in which he has become more critical of it. But whatever Mr Munchau’s criticisms, he is still ultimately in favour of the ratification of the Treaty.

But whatever the FT or the WSJ might say, surely the American Chamber of Commerce should carry more weight than opinion pieces, however highly regarded. They have clearly stated that they favour a Yes vote, citing 300,000 reasons to vote Yes.

Mr Ganley then claims that nothing has changed, citing Baroness Kinnock, who had said that the Treaty itself would not need to be re-ratified by the Houses of Parliament. True, the Treaty itself may not have changed, but each of the 27 governments are bound by the European Council agreement, which has been lodged with the UN, with the same status as the Belfast Agreement.

He complains about European bureaucrats giving information to Irish schoolchildren on the EU. It sounds here as if he’s complaining about them canvassing, which was unlikely, given the age demographic. More realistically, they were informing young citizens about their polity. This is typical of those on the No side, to give out that the EU is distant, but then continue to do so when it tries to connect with the people.

He then claims that tax harmonization is on the agenda. This is clearly false. Not only do we now have a clear guarantee on taxation, which has assured Sen. Shane Ross, who cited this as his main concern last year, but direct taxation is in no way, shape or form an EU competence. There is nothing the EU could do, no matter what the French or others want, to affect our rates of corporate or income taxation.

He then talks of empowering people who we can never vote out of office. But no one who is not elected and accountable to the people can make EU laws. The Commission, appointed by the Governments, may propose laws, but it is the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament under Lisbon, which legislates.

He claims that Lisbon creates an unelected President of Europe. This is the President of the European Council, who is Giscard d’Éstaing’s words, acts more like a chairman than anything else. They would have no policy agenda, there’d be nothing to organize a 27-member popular election on.

More bizarrely, he criticizes the fact that the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is also unelected. What country in the world elects its foreign minister? Were Micheál Martin, Hillary Rodham Clinton, David Miliband or Bernard Kouchner directly elected?

He makes a big deal of the fact that the EU is given legal personality and that we will become citizens of the European Union. That has been the case since Maastricht, so that is an objection to the position of the last seventeen years, not to measures in the Lisbon Treaty.

He claims that we don’t need the agreement on the Commissioner that comes into effect with the Lisbon Treaty, as the Swedish Prime Minister has outlined a 26 + 1 arrangement, giving the High Representative to the 27th country. This is not the position of Commissioner that was of such importance to us, and this agreement would only last till the next enlargement.

He goes on then to throw out the term democratic deficit, as if Lisbon exacerbates this. It doesn’t. Under Lisbon, we will have:

• greater scrutiny to national parliaments to make sure European institutions aren’t overstepping their remit

• the European Parliament having joint legislative powers and review of the budget
• the Citizens’ Initiative. Yes, the Commission doesn’t have to accept it, but we can’t even put something on the Irish Cabinet’s agenda
• the Council of Ministers voting in public

He dismisses the campaigns by Intel and Ryanair on the basis that they are merely trying the ensure that they will not receive further fines from the European Commission. Even if one were to take that view, it would be to ignore the fact that businesses of all levels are calling for a Yes vote. The members of the Small Firms Association and the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association have overwhelmingly shown support for the Treaty, while the main social partners ICTU and IBEC are supporting it too.

Mr Ganley might have strong business credentials, but we really should not take his word as our guidance on this matter on clear importance to our position in Europe and the wider world. He arguments do not stand up to scrutiny, and he has not addressed these areas of the debate.