Post by earl on Jun 4, 2008 13:05:29 GMT
Neil O'Brien: Just reject the political scaremongering
Ever get the feeling you are being given the hard sell? Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, says Ireland must vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, delivers the very same message. Bertie Ahern suggested that only “lunatics” would vote against the treaty and Garret FitzGerald claims that only “extremists” will be voting no. Various other politicians have talked about the “chaos” that would follow in the wake of a no vote.
Let’s try and get this in perspective. When politicians talk about “chaos”, they make it sound like rejecting the treaty will mean the lights go out all over Europe and people will be queuing for bread in the streets. The reality is that a few people in Brussels would have to organise a meeting to discuss what they’re going to do next.
Let’s try and treat people with a bit of respect too. When Ahern and FitzGerald call the no voters “lunatics” and “extremists” they are insulting quite a significant proportion of the Irish people. According to the most recent opinion poll, at least 33% of the population fall into this category. There could be more “lunatics” and “extremists” out there but they’re currently hiding in the “don’t know” camp.
The last time I saw a hard sell like this Mafia godfather Don Corleone was making Jack Woltz “an offer he couldn’t refuse.”
Politicians don’t really believe for a single second the hysterical nonsense they have started talking about how Ireland will become a “pariah” state if voters say no. They just can’t think of a good argument for the Lisbon treaty, so they have defaulted to scaremongering. But this isn’t necessarily a smart tactic. A poll taken in the wake of the Dutch voters’ decision to reject the EU constitution in 2005 found that one of the reasons people voted against was the Dutch government’s scaremongering campaign.
The justice minister warned that a rejection would raise the chances of war; the economic affairs minister said that “the lights would go off” in the case of a rejection and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy withdrew a controversial television broadcast which connected rejection with the Holocaust. No wonder 59% of voters said the government’s campaign had put them off.
It seems that politicians just can’t help playing on people’s fears. Before the Danish voted no to Maastricht, their politicians said they would be isolated if they rejected that treaty. They weren’t. Before Sweden said no to the euro, politicians said that Sweden would be isolated if they rejected the currency. They weren’t. And it was the same old story before France and the Netherlands went to the polls.
If anybody is isolated, surely it is the politicians from the people? The truth is that many people all over Europe are against transferring further powers away from democratic control to the European centre. That’s why in so many other countries the politicians are denying people a vote. In France, Britain, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands the politicians are so scared that people would say no, they won’t let them vote at all.
Perhaps politicians may be struggling to find a good argument for the treaty because they have not read it and don’t know what’s in it. Both Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevy have admitted to not reading the treaty. In fact McCreevy went further, claiming that “no sane sensible person” would read through it all. So not only are they asking us to take the whole thing on trust, but in fact they are taking the whole thing on trust themselves. This is pretty extraordinary.
The closest the yes campaign has come to a real argument for the treaty is the claim that there will be more involvement for national parliaments. But even this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Here’s how it works. Citing “subsidiarity” concerns on precisely the same issue, at least nine parliaments must vote against a proposal already agreed by their governments and are given just eight weeks to do so.
If all these conditions are met, the EU commission will “reconsider” its proposals. After that period of consideration the commission can then decide to override the concerns of national parliaments anyway — which is exactly what happened the first time this mechanism was given a trial run a few years ago. This so-called “orange card” is a joke.
Compare this new power being “granted” to Ireland by Brussels with those that are being transferred from Ireland to Brussels: increased control over the economy, trade policy, criminal justice, human rights and foreign policy. It’s a pretty lopsided exchange.
The smarter people on the yes side acknowledge that they have a problem. Charlie McCreevy admits that compared to previous votes the Lisbon treaty is “a more difficult sell for the yes side, in that there is not a big point to build a campaign around.” If it doesn’t do anything good, then what is the point?
Let’s go back to where this whole thing started. In response to the Irish rejection of the Nice treaty at the first time of asking, EU leaders drew up an important document called the Laeken Declaration just before Christmas 2001. This declaration admitted for the first time that the EU had some serious problems.
Acknowledging that “deals are all too often cut out of citizens’ sight”, the declaration criticised the “creeping expansion of the competence of the union”. It acknowledged that the public did not want “a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life”. It even talked about handing back powers or as they put it: “restoring tasks to the member states.”
But although the diagnosis was spot-on, the treaty they then came up with didn’t solve the problems they had identified.
Instead of handing powers back, it takes more away. It would mean more, not less, legislation and interference. So a treaty that was supposed to bring Europe closer to the people is now being pushed through despite its popular rejection in two countries.
And even in Ireland, the only country with a vote, the voters are still not being treated honestly by politicians. A recent article in Le Figaro, the French newspaper, complained that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had been asked to keep his controversial plans for EU military integration under wraps because “Dublin fears that the parts of the white paper devoted to the expansion of European defence policy will feed the no vote and ruin the referendum.”
Why can’t the politicians just campaign on the main points in the Lisbon treaty? After all, there are some big changes being proposed. There would be majority voting in 60 new areas, covering everything from energy policy to employment law for the self-employed. So the EU will be able to pass more laws in these areas. There will be a de facto EU foreign minister, an EU diplomatic service, plus moves to a common defence through a new defence group. So the EU will move a step closer to Tony Blair’s ambition that it should become a “superpower”. There will be a powerful EU president and new EU powers over public services — including health and education, public spending and transport.
The problem is that politicians don’t actually believe that people want these changes. So they have ended up in a situation where they are trying to sell something to people that they don’t really think they want. That would explain why, in private, some EU diplomats seem strangely relaxed about the prospect of a no vote.
According to Quentin Peel, an enthusiastically positive commentator on EU matters, one eurocrat told him: “Quite a lot of people in Brussels might be relieved. There are not a huge number of fans of the \ treaty. A lot of the small members hate the permanent \ president. Others worry about the cost of the EU diplomatic service. And some think we have given away too many powers to the \ parliament. There may not be as many tears shed as we think.” So perhaps voting no is not such a “lunatic” idea after all.
Ever get the feeling you are being given the hard sell? Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, says Ireland must vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, delivers the very same message. Bertie Ahern suggested that only “lunatics” would vote against the treaty and Garret FitzGerald claims that only “extremists” will be voting no. Various other politicians have talked about the “chaos” that would follow in the wake of a no vote.
Let’s try and get this in perspective. When politicians talk about “chaos”, they make it sound like rejecting the treaty will mean the lights go out all over Europe and people will be queuing for bread in the streets. The reality is that a few people in Brussels would have to organise a meeting to discuss what they’re going to do next.
Let’s try and treat people with a bit of respect too. When Ahern and FitzGerald call the no voters “lunatics” and “extremists” they are insulting quite a significant proportion of the Irish people. According to the most recent opinion poll, at least 33% of the population fall into this category. There could be more “lunatics” and “extremists” out there but they’re currently hiding in the “don’t know” camp.
The last time I saw a hard sell like this Mafia godfather Don Corleone was making Jack Woltz “an offer he couldn’t refuse.”
Politicians don’t really believe for a single second the hysterical nonsense they have started talking about how Ireland will become a “pariah” state if voters say no. They just can’t think of a good argument for the Lisbon treaty, so they have defaulted to scaremongering. But this isn’t necessarily a smart tactic. A poll taken in the wake of the Dutch voters’ decision to reject the EU constitution in 2005 found that one of the reasons people voted against was the Dutch government’s scaremongering campaign.
The justice minister warned that a rejection would raise the chances of war; the economic affairs minister said that “the lights would go off” in the case of a rejection and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy withdrew a controversial television broadcast which connected rejection with the Holocaust. No wonder 59% of voters said the government’s campaign had put them off.
It seems that politicians just can’t help playing on people’s fears. Before the Danish voted no to Maastricht, their politicians said they would be isolated if they rejected that treaty. They weren’t. Before Sweden said no to the euro, politicians said that Sweden would be isolated if they rejected the currency. They weren’t. And it was the same old story before France and the Netherlands went to the polls.
If anybody is isolated, surely it is the politicians from the people? The truth is that many people all over Europe are against transferring further powers away from democratic control to the European centre. That’s why in so many other countries the politicians are denying people a vote. In France, Britain, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands the politicians are so scared that people would say no, they won’t let them vote at all.
Perhaps politicians may be struggling to find a good argument for the treaty because they have not read it and don’t know what’s in it. Both Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevy have admitted to not reading the treaty. In fact McCreevy went further, claiming that “no sane sensible person” would read through it all. So not only are they asking us to take the whole thing on trust, but in fact they are taking the whole thing on trust themselves. This is pretty extraordinary.
The closest the yes campaign has come to a real argument for the treaty is the claim that there will be more involvement for national parliaments. But even this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Here’s how it works. Citing “subsidiarity” concerns on precisely the same issue, at least nine parliaments must vote against a proposal already agreed by their governments and are given just eight weeks to do so.
If all these conditions are met, the EU commission will “reconsider” its proposals. After that period of consideration the commission can then decide to override the concerns of national parliaments anyway — which is exactly what happened the first time this mechanism was given a trial run a few years ago. This so-called “orange card” is a joke.
Compare this new power being “granted” to Ireland by Brussels with those that are being transferred from Ireland to Brussels: increased control over the economy, trade policy, criminal justice, human rights and foreign policy. It’s a pretty lopsided exchange.
The smarter people on the yes side acknowledge that they have a problem. Charlie McCreevy admits that compared to previous votes the Lisbon treaty is “a more difficult sell for the yes side, in that there is not a big point to build a campaign around.” If it doesn’t do anything good, then what is the point?
Let’s go back to where this whole thing started. In response to the Irish rejection of the Nice treaty at the first time of asking, EU leaders drew up an important document called the Laeken Declaration just before Christmas 2001. This declaration admitted for the first time that the EU had some serious problems.
Acknowledging that “deals are all too often cut out of citizens’ sight”, the declaration criticised the “creeping expansion of the competence of the union”. It acknowledged that the public did not want “a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life”. It even talked about handing back powers or as they put it: “restoring tasks to the member states.”
But although the diagnosis was spot-on, the treaty they then came up with didn’t solve the problems they had identified.
Instead of handing powers back, it takes more away. It would mean more, not less, legislation and interference. So a treaty that was supposed to bring Europe closer to the people is now being pushed through despite its popular rejection in two countries.
And even in Ireland, the only country with a vote, the voters are still not being treated honestly by politicians. A recent article in Le Figaro, the French newspaper, complained that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had been asked to keep his controversial plans for EU military integration under wraps because “Dublin fears that the parts of the white paper devoted to the expansion of European defence policy will feed the no vote and ruin the referendum.”
Why can’t the politicians just campaign on the main points in the Lisbon treaty? After all, there are some big changes being proposed. There would be majority voting in 60 new areas, covering everything from energy policy to employment law for the self-employed. So the EU will be able to pass more laws in these areas. There will be a de facto EU foreign minister, an EU diplomatic service, plus moves to a common defence through a new defence group. So the EU will move a step closer to Tony Blair’s ambition that it should become a “superpower”. There will be a powerful EU president and new EU powers over public services — including health and education, public spending and transport.
The problem is that politicians don’t actually believe that people want these changes. So they have ended up in a situation where they are trying to sell something to people that they don’t really think they want. That would explain why, in private, some EU diplomats seem strangely relaxed about the prospect of a no vote.
According to Quentin Peel, an enthusiastically positive commentator on EU matters, one eurocrat told him: “Quite a lot of people in Brussels might be relieved. There are not a huge number of fans of the \ treaty. A lot of the small members hate the permanent \ president. Others worry about the cost of the EU diplomatic service. And some think we have given away too many powers to the \ parliament. There may not be as many tears shed as we think.” So perhaps voting no is not such a “lunatic” idea after all.