Lisbon 2: the battle of the elites

Unfounded fears of an unelected elite must not be allowed to scare people into rejecting Lisbon again, writes Eoin Bannon

“We should not foist the wishes of an unaccountable, unelected elite in Brussels upon our fellow European citizens,” Declan Ganley said a few days before the Lisbon Treaty referendum last year. This statement contains two central planks of the argument that saw the document rejected and will no doubt be central to another No campaign before a second vote on the treaty, likely to be held in October.

The first part of the argument is that by ratifying Lisbon, the Irish people would be forcing the treaty upon our fellow European citizens against their wishes. By now, the national parliaments in all 26 other EU member states have ratified Lisbon. So, implicit in Ganley’s argument is that our method of ratification is superior to others, who as representative democracies believed Lisbon did not transfer enough sovereignty to merit a referendum. Would Ganley argue that referendums on these documents should be mandatory in all EU member states? You would imagine that would imply a much more federal Europe than most No campaigners would like to see.

The second crucial element of the No campaign was that accepting Lisbon would see power ceded to the “elite”. Usually, the focus was on an unelected Brussels elite – the bureaucrats who, if we are to believe what we’ve been told, are on the verge of taking full control of the European project. Suspicion of these unelected bureaucrats runs deep. In response to queries about how Libertas is funded, Ganley asserted that our independent Standards in Public Office Commission had become an “instrument” of this same Brussels elite.

That Lisbon was a document negotiated and signed-off on by all 27 heads of government, did not deter Libertas from labelling it part of the unelected elite’s agenda. That Ganley is a millionaire running an organisation comprised of unelected individuals that outspent all the parties in the Yes campaign combined, did not deter Libertas from propounding the myth of Ireland defending the people of Europe against an unelected elite.

But the myth worked brilliantly, aided by a feeling among voters that, with the first signs of an economic downturn emerging, we could send a message to the government, who themselves are, of course, an elite group. A Yes campaign comprised of Fianna Fáil, the PDs, most of the Greens, along with Fine Gael, Labour, trade union leaders and the Irish Times made for an easy caricature of the upper echelons of Irish society being out of touch with the people.

The “elite” myth was further helped by the Yes side’s incompetence, losing all control of the agenda from day one of the campaign. So, with the1995 McKenna judgement ensuring that both sides received equal airtime, the No side happily threw up red herrings such as conscription into a non-existent EU army, and the privatisation of education. The Yes campaign spent all its airtime refuting arguments that should never have been an issue in the first place. When more understandable but ultimately mistaken concerns regarding neutrality, abortion and corporation tax were clarified by the independent Referendum Commission, chaired by a High Court judge, the Yes campaign’s portion of the airtime was still taken up by rebuttals of non-issues. The truth about real issues got scant coverage.

However, even the most enthusiastic supporters of the European project would acknowledge that all is not well in the EU. There is a disconnect between citizens and the process of decision-making. For me, that manifested itself in Lisbon’s precursor, the Constitution for Europe. I will not second-guess the reasons why the French and Dutch people rejected it in 2005, but I am glad they did. In its title as a ‘constitution’ and its provisions for an official flag, anthem and motto for Europe, it took steps in a federal direction that, while not altering our sovereignty in a legalistic way, would do so in an emotional way. The project’s advancement should not and does not need to contribute to the erosion of national identity.

It has been correctly pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty is 95 per cent the same document as the ill-fated Constitution for Europe. But they omitted the right 5 per cent – the unnecessary and harmful symbolism.

In the 95 per cent that has been retained in Lisbon, we have firm measures that will help narrow the disconnect between citizens and decision-making. For the first time, a petition signed by one million EU citizens would force the Commission to discuss a particular proposal. International organisations such as Amnesty International have already highlighted how this could be put to good use. Lisbon also provides for our directly elected national representatives in the Dáil and Seanad to have a role in determining new EU laws. The powers of the European Parliament – a directly elected body – to give assent to or reject policies proposed by the Commission would be broadened.

These may read like very technical, intangible ways to hold Europe’s law-makers to account. But in a Union of 500 million people, it is the fairest way to do so.

Since we rejected the Lisbon Treaty last June – 53 per cent against, 46 per cent in favour – the political leaders of Europe have given us assurances in key areas of abortion, taxation and neutrality. Legally these assurances are not necessary. Our sovereignty in these areas is secure. But, politically, they are required to reassure voters who have been put on their guard by the myth of an unelected elite that wants to raise their taxes and conscript their children.

Eoin Bannon is a former editor of Sin Newspaper