The campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland is buoyant, thanks in large part to the zeal of Declan Ganley. But the question remains: who is bankrolling him?
Outside Dublin's Croke Park traders were selling hats, scarves and T-shirts to the thousands of fans on their way in to watch Dublin play Louth at Gaelic football. A well-dressed, well-groomed highly articulate man with an English accent was on a rather different selling mission, handing out, not sporting paraphernalia, but copies of the Lisbon Treaty on Europe's future.
The man, Declan Ganley, should be a member of Ireland's elite establishment: he is after all a millionaire, living in a mansion in Galway and owning a Rolls-Royce, a Merc and a helicopter. Yet the establishment is intensely fearful of him, because of the highly effective role he has played in persuading Irish voters to reject the Lisbon Treaty and send the European Union back to the drawing board.
They worry in Brussels too, apprehensive that an anti-Lisbon vote would deliver a huge setback to the entire European project.
While all of Ireland's major political parties are urging the electorate to turn out and support the Treaty in this Thursday's referendum, 39-year-old Mr Ganley has been at the centre of the campaign against the document.
His performance seems certain to help notch up the highest negative vote ever recorded in Ireland's periodic referendums on European issues. The latest opinion poll puts the Yes campaign only three points ahead: the No people may even win.
On the surface, Mr Ganley seemed on Sunday to have little enough in common with the fans streaming into Croke Park. Yet although vendors seemed to be selling few scarves, Mr Ganley and the other anti-Lisbon campaigners have been doing a roaring trade in pushing for a No vote.
An unscientific straw poll of fans produced a large anti-Lisbon majority. "I'm voting No," said one woman. "We had to fight for freedom and I don't like to see that thrown away."
A young man added: "I'll be voting No. I've heard the tax would go up. It would affect the money we're earning." A cheerful woman in her fifties, wearing a jester's cap in Dublin colours, said: "We won't have a proper vote in Europe if we go with the Yes vote, so we're voting No."
A middle-aged couple shook their heads: "The government is terrible, so we're voting no. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer."
A man in his forties, wearing sunglasses, was one of the few Yes supporters: "Ireland has done very well out of Europe. I know the arguments against but they're mainly spurious, with people wanting every single axe to grind."
More representative was the young man who declared: "I just don't agree with a lot of what they're going to do. I would be generally pro-European but not on this Treaty. It's a step too far as far as I'm concerned."
Many opponents of the Treaty insist they are pro-Europe, but do not feel that voting No makes them bad Europeans. Mr Ganley repeatedly makes this point: "Ireland is a pro-European country," he said, raising his voice above the din of horns from the fans. "We want Ireland to be at the heart of Europe, but we want a democratic and accountable Europe and the Lisbon Treaty gives us the opposite."
Lisbon, he contends, is bad for the Irish economy, in particular endangering its low rate of corporation tax. It would, he says, reduce Ireland's influence and hand over much power to Brussels.
He can hardly be accused of being insular, since he has amassed his fortune with international ventures which have taken him to the US, Russia, Bulgaria and Latvia where he once worked as an adviser to the government. His English accent comes from the fact that he was born in London, though his Irish-born parents took the family back to live in rural Co Galway when he was 13.
In some ways he did not fit in, but he compensated with precocious entrepreneurial flair which emerged in his teens. After school he went from working on construction sites in London to a lowly position in an insurance company before going on to build a business career ranging from aluminium in Russia to forestry in Latvia, telecommunications in Bulgaria and jewellery on the internet. Some of his concerns have not been huge successes, while others are said to have been sold on for phenomenal sums. What is clear is that until this campaign, he was much better known in the business world than in political activity and that he has concentrated on international rather than Irish activity.
Some of his many companies do business with the US military-industrial complex – one supplies emergency response systems to the military – leading some in the Yes camp to portray him as a shadowy figure with connections to neoconservatives whose organisation is being bankrolled by sinister money from outside Ireland. One senior figure asked: "Are they getting it from the CIA, the UK Independence Party or their friends in the US military?" Certainly, his campaign movement Libertas has spent plenty of money. On Sunday, for example, he could afford to have a private plane soar over Croke Park trailing the message "Keep Europe off the pitch – vote No".
Libertas, which dismisses all such suggestions, is one of a wide range of anti-Treaty groups ranging from the far-right to the far-left. They concentrate on different areas affected by the Treaty and indeed in some cases areas which are, arguably, not affected by it at all. The key word is "arguably" since the Treaty is almost 400 pages long and so filled with legal complexities as to be unintelligible to the layperson.
The Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, admitted he had not read it "from cover to cover". Ireland's European commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, added that "only a lunatic" would try.
Mr Ganley attracted interest by saying he had gone through it, a feat which earned him the nickname "The Man Who Has Read the Treaty."
The sheer length and density of the document means that the campaign has ranged over workers' rights, a European army, Irish neutrality, discharges from Sellafield nuclear plant, abortion and euthanasia. These are reflected on the posters enlivening Dublin: "We don't want EU military expansion," proclaimed one. "Don't vote EU taxation," said another while a third urged: "People died for your freedom, vote No."
Sinn Fein is prominent in the No campaign, arguing that Lisbon gives Brussels too much power, would damage the economy, undermine neutrality and drive down salaries.
A familiar pattern has emerged in this campaign: referendum propositions generate automatic coalitions of opponents who may have very different and indeed contradictory reasons for opposing them. One Irish politician remembers the late British Labour leader John Smith saying privately that the trouble with referendums is that people often answer questions they weren't asked.
A government supporter, handing out Yes leaflets near Croke Park, complained: "The Yes campaign has a more difficult task. The No campaign can cherry-pick areas – but I have to sell the entire Treaty, as it is."
The trouble for the Yes people is that the Lisbon Treaty offers no obvious reward for supporting it, either in terms of idealism or practical benefits. And most voters seem to have concluded that there is no real penalty involved if they vote No.
A further tactical disadvantage for the Yes people is that the No campaign was much faster out of the traps, becoming active from the start of the year, long before major parties got organised. Since then almost the entire establishment – business, farmers, major trade unions, media – have lent their weight to the Yes campaign. The big political beasts like Mr Cowen are out on the streets and finally seem to be making up lost ground, though it will take a late swing to deliver a Yes victory.
But a problem lies in the standing of the political classes themselves, whose reputation has taken a severe pounding through the years of the corruption tribunals, still in session after many years of unsettling revelations.
But at a deeper level Irish opinion seems disenchanted with the European project itself. The elite is still as pro-Brussels as ever, but comments such as Mr McCreevy's have added to the familiar criticism that people at the top are becoming more complacent and condescending.
Ireland was once hugely, automatically pro-European, originally in terms of idealism and later in terms of major funding. But eaten bread is soon forgotten, and now that monies are diverted to newer EU entrants Irish Euroscepticism is rising.
This may seem ungrateful, since EU money helped create the Celtic Tiger. And, at another important level, it has greatly increased national self-respect and self-assurance.But self-assurance tends to bring a decrease in deference, as the Irish electorate is showing.
A Yes vote will allow the European project to continue. A No vote would produce the paradox that the Irish, long so pro-Europe, could hold up the entire thrust of continental development.
The Pride of the Irish
By ROBIN SHEPHERD
June 10, 2008
Few things inspire greater terror among senior European Union officials than the word "referendum." Thursday's ballot on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland is, therefore, guaranteed to have nerves a jangling. If the Irish vote "no," Brussels will be faced with two choices, neither of them pretty. It could accept that a nation of four million people has consigned a treaty for a union of 490 million people to the dustbin of history. Or it could, once more, trash the EU's democratic credentials by pressuring Ireland to hold another ballot until its people vote the "right" way.
That is exactly what happened after the Irish rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001. They simply repeated the exercise the following year and, hey presto, got the "right" result. Once again, the momentum is clearly with the "nos." A Red C poll for the Sunday Business Post suggests that the treaty supporters' lead is down to three percentage points from eight two weeks ago. Another poll last week even had the "no" camp in the lead.
It would be more than ironic if the Irish of all people were to trip up the Treaty. In a Eurobarometer poll last December, which asked EU citizens whether they thought membership had benefited their countries, the Irish came top of the list with a positive reading of 87%. They are among the most pro-European peoples in the entire EU.
So what is going on? Simply dismissing the no camp as a bunch of euroskeptic "scare mongerers" won't cut it.
True, fears among Treaty opponents that Brussels may override Ireland's restrictive abortion laws are misplaced. But the threat to Ireland's neutrality is not quite so far-fetched. The Treaty won't force the country to join EU military missions, but it does seek to considerably strengthen defense capacities. Europe-wide defense policies are already a reality, and a debate now seems fair for a neutral country whose EU membership implies a shared moral responsibility for all European policies.
The no camp is also right that the Lisbon Treaty will reduce Ireland's voting power. As such, the entire panoply of EU policies is surely worthy of discussion since Ireland's voice will be weakened. Take the recent proposal from France, which takes the EU presidency in July, to harmonize the corporate tax base. Since France has a history of complaining about "tax dumping" from countries like Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate of just 12.5%, it is hardly scare mongering to have a debate about whether this could be the thin end of the wedge toward harmonizing – read: "raising" – corporate taxes across the union.
Taken together, this may not be enough to warrant rejecting the treaty. But there is plenty of room for a decent debate. Uniquely, that's what's taking place in Ireland – the only country out of 27 whose people will be directly consulted. This brings us to a bigger issue, which forms the subtext to much of the "no" camp's grumblings but which matters to all of Europe. That issue, of course, is democratic legitimacy.
Consider the sheer awfulness of the farrago surrounding the 2005 French and Dutch referendums that rejected the European Constitution. Since many EU leaders have since boasted that the Lisbon Treaty is practically the same as the "Constitution," the fact that the French and Dutch will effectively get something they rejected is obviously a travesty of democracy. In some ways this is more antidemocratic than if the EU had rigged the referendums. To rig a vote is at least to accept the principle that political legitimacy requires victory at the polls, even if the "victory" is secured by cheating. To hold a ballot, lose it and then ride roughshod over the result is not even to accept that a democratic vote matters at all.
Worryingly, too many of the EU's most passionate supporters tend to dismiss such criticism as heresy. But just because the EU's enemies use the democratic legitimacy argument as a pretext to question the entire project, this does not mean the matter can simply be brushed aside. There are lots of people who believe that the EU has in many ways been a magnificent success, especially in integrating the formerly communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, but who also see that something has gone wrong. They must not be intimidated by a zealotry that will brook no criticism, however constructive, of the beloved "project." That is not only anti-intellectual; it makes the more enlightened supporters of European integration fearful of speaking up.
In spite of the pressures, some have had the courage to do so. Last year, Germany's former President Roman Herzog wondered whether given all the laws coming from Brussels, Germany could still be called "a parliamentary democracy." If a former head of Germany's constitutional court, who chaired the convention that drafted the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, says people worry that the "democratic control mechanisms are failing," perhaps it's time to sit up and listen.
Admittedly, the problem is easier to describe than to solve. There is no European "demos," and that makes for a difficult fit between democratic practice and realities of integration. The conundrum is particularly difficult for those who see benefits in pan-European cooperation but who also believe that the exercise of power must yield position to the source of that power's legitimacy. If consulting the people means that integration must be held back or reversed, so be it. Democracy is an end in itself.
It is not easy to define when referendums about European integration are appropriate. But given that the general thrust of EU integration has been to take powers away from national parliaments, genuine democrats should probably err on the side of calling referendums more often than not. Whichever way the Irish go this week, they can at least be proud their country has given them a choice. The rest of Europe looks on in envy.
Mr. Shepherd is senior fellow for Europe at Chatham House.
Reuters
Sunday, June 8, 2008
DUBLIN: Critics of the draft treaty to overhaul the European Union in Ireland, which will vote on the ratification of the document Thursday, are a diverse group that is united by the belief that the treaty would undermine democracy.
Opponents of the pact include pacifists, anti-abortionists, nationalists and a handful of business executives who all share the view that Ireland and its people will be left with a weaker voice in the 27-member group.
An opinion poll published Friday indicated that their campaign might succeed. Rejection by Ireland, the only EU member country that is holding a referendum on the treaty, could unravel years of work to reach an agreement over how the rapidly expanding bloc should be run.
"On the democracy issue, across the no campaigners, you will find that is a key concern emerging," Mary Lou McDonald, a European Parliament deputy from the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, said during an interview.
The anti-treaty camp argues that the pact will give more powers to the EU, strengthen the voice of larger states at the expense of smaller ones and leave loopholes enabling the bloc to compromise Irish neutrality and dilute its control over taxes, trade and abortion.
Prime Minister Brian Cowen of Ireland has accused opponents of the draft treaty of spreading fear and confusion by campaigning on extraneous issues.
The official referendum monitor in Ireland, whose task is to inform the public about the issues at stake, and the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin have rejected concerns that the treaty would open the way for the EU to weaken Ireland's strict abortion and euthanasia laws.
But Libertas, a policy research group headed by Declan Ganley, a businessman, said that he believed the treaty would give up power to "an unelected elite in Brussels" and that it was little more than a rehash of the EU draft constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
Other opponents say smaller states would see their share of votes shrink on the decision-making European Council, since the distribution of votes would be weighted according to population size. They also object to states' losing permanent representation on the European Commission, the EU executive body.
Cowen said Ireland had ensured that commission posts would rotate equally among all countries. The treaty, he said Friday on RTE radio, resolves "the whole question of expressing equality of treatment for all countries."
Pro-treaty parties say that as well as strengthening EU leadership, the pact would give national Parliaments a say in drafting laws, reviewing proposals, and demanding amendments when at least one-third of them object.
Critics of the draft treaty say that whichever way the vote goes, they have at least ensured a proper debate in a country where almost the entire political establishment is backing the pact.
"We have forced them at least to some extent to actually knuckle down and deal with concrete issues," said McDonald of Sinn Fein.
The surge in support for opponents of the treaty has alarmed some of its advocates, who say there is no alternative to fall back on. But Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel of Slovenia, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, said he remained confident.
"I still believe that the Irish referendum will succeed," he said. "I'm very sure of that."
Other supporters of the draft treaty made it clear they were concerned.
"We've been struggling to reform for years and there is no prospect of renegotiating the treaty," said Andrew Duff, a supporter of the pact and British Liberal member of the European Parliament.
José Ignacio Torreblanca, a senior research fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said. "People are very scared in Brussels, because it is going to be a real mess if the Irish vote no."
Britain and others could then suspend ratification, leaving the EU to continue under decision-making structures straining under the weight of 27 member states. "A no vote would unleash a sort of chain reaction," Torreblanca said.
The treaty would create a long-term president of the European Council of EU leaders, a stronger foreign policy chief with a real diplomatic service, a more democratic voting system and more say for the national and European Parliaments.
If the anti-treaty camp prevails, it would turn a meeting of EU leaders the following week into a crisis session and put a cloud over the incoming French EU presidency and its goal of ensuring the treaty comes into force.
"Of all European countries, Ireland is one of those which has been able most magnificently to adapt to the European Union," President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said Friday.
He urged a vote in favor of the treaty while visiting Athens on Friday in preparation for France assuming the EU presidency next month.
"I hope that the Irish understand the extremely important issues at stake for them and for us," Sarkozy said.
Lisbon Treaty for dummies!
By (Courtesy of eurolinknews.com) Saturday June 7th, 2008
DON'T have a clue what we are being asked to vote on in the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on June 12th? Join the rest of the country!
The treaty comprises 270 pages of complex legal language – it's the kind of thing that induces a strong craving for 'Heat' magazine. Here's a sample: 'In Article 122(2) the second sentence shall become the first subparagraph of Article 117a(2); it shall be amended as set out above in point 102.' Etcetera.
But, don't worry, help is at hand. Here is a breakdown of the treaty into a ten point summary, so you can make up your mind without having to enlist a lawyer…
Unreadable. Impenetrable. Confusing. This is the general reaction of anyone who has read or attempted to read the Lisbon Treaty, from politicians to pundits to ordinary people trying to find the facts. The Treaty amends the contents of several existing EU treaties in a document running to hundreds of pages of legal articles, protocols, declarations and annexes.
Those in favour of a 'Yes' vote argue that complexity is unavoidable when a treaty needs to set out the rules governing relations between 27 sovereign member states. Those opposed to the Treaty have claimed it is deliberately unclear, and that we should not be asked to vote on something we cannot understand.
Both sides agree that the Lisbon Treaty preserves the main substance of the EU constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Both sides also agree that some reform of EU structures is necessary, to facilitate the continuing expansion of the union and streamline its decision-making processes.
The question is whether the Lisbon Treaty, signed by EU leaders last December and due to come into effect in 2009, represents the best path to reform.
Ireland is the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the Treaty, as required by our constitution. Every other member state can ratify the Treaty by a vote in their national parliament. As such, we hold responsibility for supporting or rejecting the Treaty on behalf of about 490 million Europeans who do not have the option to vote.
Below are some of the main changes that will come about if the Lisbon Treaty is approved by the people of Ireland. Whether they are positive, negative, necessary, significant or otherwise is up to you to decide:
1. Top jobs:
A politician will be chosen to be President of the European Council for two and a half years, replacing the current system where presidency is rotated between member states every six months. Another post to be created will be the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, combining the current roles of EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana and External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
2. Charter of Fundamental Rights:
The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally-binding document. The Charter lists the human rights recognised by the European Union.
3. Citizens' Initiative:
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.
4. National parliaments to get 'yellow card' facility:
All proposals for EU legislation will have to be sent to national parliaments, who will then have eight weeks to offer a 'reasoned opinion' on whether they believe the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity (this is the principle by which decisions should as far as possible be made at local or national level). If enough national parliaments object to a proposal, the Commission can decide to maintain, amend or withdraw it.
5. Smaller Commission:
The European Commission is the EU's executive arm; it put forwards legislation and ensures that EU policies are correctly implemented. Since 2004, it has been made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state. Under the new treaty, the commission will be reduced to 18 members from 2014, with membership rotating every five years. This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.
6. European Parliament to get greater powers but reduced numbers:
Currently, the European Parliament has joint lawmaking power with the Council of Ministers over about 75% of legislative areas. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, co-decision will be extended to virtually all areas of EU policy.
The European Parliament comprises 785 MEPs from across the union; under the treaty, this will be permanently reduced to 751. The number of Irish MEPs will drop from 13 to 12.
7. New areas of EU competence:
The Lisbon Treaty will set out those areas over which the EU has exclusive competence, shared competence with member states, or supporting competence. The Treaty gives the EU no new areas of exclusive competence, however it establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.
8. Redistribution of voting weights between member states:
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU's population. It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.
9. Shift from unanimity to majority voting:
The Lisbon Treaty will see an increase in the number of policy areas to be decided by a majority vote at the Council, rather than by unanimity. Qualified majority voting will become the norm, however there are some notable exceptions that will still require unanimous decisions, including taxation and defence.
One area where the unanimity veto will give way to qualified majority voting is Justice and Home Affairs, covering issues such as asylum, immigration, criminal law, border controls and police cooperation. Ireland has the power to opt-out of this area on a case-by-case basis.
10. Changes to Common Security and Defence Policy:
The Lisbon Treaty provides for the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the European Union, which will nonetheless respect the neutrality of member states like Ireland. It also allows the European Council to change decision-making from unanimity to majority voting in a number of areas, excluding military and defence. However such changes will themselves require unanimous decisions.
The Treaty extends the range of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions for which the union may draw on member states to include disarmament operations, military advice and assistance and post-conflict stabilisation.
