| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__NEWS__Ireland_________________________
No to Nice
From political parties and labor leaders to corporate executives and Catholic bishops,
Ireland’s establishment backed the Treaty of Nice. But the people, urged on by an unusual
coalition of interest groups, rejected the Treaty.
By Kieron Wood
Ireland’s voters delivered a slap in the face, not only to the country’s politicians, but also to the Catholic bishops when they voted “No” in a referendum on the Nice Treaty on June 7.
The Treaty—named after the southern French city where it was negotiated—would have introduced political reforms throughout Europe to cope with the proposed enlargement of the 15-country European Union (EU).
Most European countries planned simply to accept the treaty’s provisions, but in Ireland, the electorate was given the opportunity to express its opinion.
Ireland’s coalition government expressed unqualified support for the Treaty and, despite earlier skepticism, all the main opposition parties in Parliament also backed the measure. The trade unions and most of the media also urged a “Yes” vote, as did employers’ and farmers’ organizations and the Catholic bishops.
In a statement on May 31, the bishops accepted that the Treaty would mean “a significant reduction in national sovereignty,” but added: “On balance, there seems to be a stronger case for the Treaty than against. To vote against Nice would be to change the direction of positive involvement in Europe we have been going for more than 25 years, an involvement that has been to our benefit.”
Unlikely allies
Opponents of the treaty comprised an unlikely coalition of traditional Catholics, republican politicians, the Green Party, nationalists, and left-wingers.
Catholics, including the European Parliamentarian and former EWTN television personality Dana Scallon, feared that the treaty would lead to the introduction of abortion and an easing of the restrictions on divorce.
Nationalists said Nice would result in a two-tier Europe, with large nations such as Germany and France imposing their views on the smaller countries. A former prime minister of the Mediterranean island of Malta was among those who raised their voices in support of the “No” campaign.
There were also fears about the loss of Ireland’s traditional neutrality because of proposals to join the “Partnership for Peace,” a military pact which will form part of a “common defense policy” for Europe.
Opponents of the Treaty were incensed when Prime Minister Bertie Ahern accused the “No” lobby of being funded by foreign right-wing sources. They produced details of the campaign bank accounts to disprove the allegations.
Opinion polls suggested that the Treaty would be passed by a majority of up to 10 percent. But when the votes were counted, the electorate had rejected the treaty by 529,478 votes to 453,461, a margin of 54 percent “No” to 46 percent “Yes.” The only two constituencies to vote in favor were the affluent, liberal suburbs of Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire.
Another referendum later?
Among the “No” voters was Eamon O Cuiv, a grandson of Eamonn de Valera, the founding father of the Irish Constitution. O Cuiv, a member of the ruling Fianna Fail party, was called on the carpet for his defiance of party discipline; Fianna Fail had wholeheartedly endorsed the Nice Treaty.
Adding to the government’s embarrassment, Minister for Finance Charlie McCreevy—who was recently chastized by the EU for his free-market tax policies—described the result as a “remarkably healthy development” and an anti-establishment statement of which the Irish people should be proud.
In the immediate aftermath of the vote, the government announced that it would set up a National Forum on Europe, which it hoped would “allay public fears” about the Treaty. Diplomatic sources suggested that the Irish government may now seek declarations on military neutrality, abortion, and the limits of EU power before putting the matter to the electorate once more—probably following a general election next year.
Kieron Wood, a journalist and barrister based in Dublin, writes regularly for CWR.
Excerpts from the Irish bishops’ statement
While the Irish Bishops are aware that we as a people are gradually getting more familiar with the European process, they are not at all convinced that our response is adequate. It is broadly accepted that Europe has treated us well materially and that it will soon be our turn to help others as we have been helped ourselves. We need a greater awareness that Europe means more than the exchange of merchandise. Our involvement in the EU has enabled us to be more outward-looking towards Europe, to pick up again a vibrant tradition that was launched by the monks of the early Christian centuries.…
. . . In particular, according to the bishops, the Charter acknowledges the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, and respect for national identity. At the same time the bishops felt obliged to point out areas where the Charter is manifestly incomplete. For example, the prohibition of the cloning of human life extends only to reproductive, as distinct from therapeutic, cloning. In addition, they considered that the contribution of religions, in particular of Christianity, in promoting the dignity of the human person and the rights accruing from that dignity could have found a more robust acknowledgement, particularly in the preamble….
. . . Arguments for and against have to be considered, but in the end a decision has to be made. On balance there seems to be a stronger case for the Treaty than against. To vote against Nice would be to change the direction of positive involvement in Europe we have been going for more than 25 years, an involvement that has been to our benefit.
What next for the EU?
Leaders of the European Union (EU) were caught off guard by the Irish voters’ rejection of the Nice Treaty. Virtually every major political force in the country had encouraged ratification. Only in the last few days leading up to the June 11 vote did journalists begin to point out that the vast majority of posters displayed on street corners were calling for a No vote.
The Nice Treaty, which must be approved by all 15 member-states of the EU, was intended to change the form of the Union to accept 12 new members, most of them from Eastern Europe. But the Irish voters’ rejection of the Treaty throws the future into doubt. The Irish government has reportedly asked EU officials for time to come up with a solution—which could take the form of a new national referendum, perhaps preceded by heavier campaigning by the country’s political establishment in favor of the Treaty.
The EU Commissioner responsible for plans to enlarge the Union, Guenter Verheugen, said that expansion would not be possible if Ireland could not find a way to ratify the treaty. He said the government should study the vote in detail, to find out what it was in the Treaty that the Irish voters found objectionable. But the coalition that opposed Nice was so diverse, and the complaints of the Treaty’s opponents were so disparate, that it will be difficult for proponents of the Treaty to settle on a single analysis of the referendum defeat—or, consequently, to ensure that a new referendum will not also produce the same result.
Government officials have agreed that it would not be prudent simply to call for a second referendum without first having built up public support for the Treaty. Prime Minister Bertie Ahern remarked:
I am conscious that the difficulty will not be easy to resolve. We need to take our time, however, to consider and consult and so the government will not be coming to any hasty conclusions about the next steps.
One of the leading opponents of the treaty was Dana Scallon, one of Ireland’s 15 representatives to the European Parliament. She said before the vote that her opposition to the treaty was based on her firm belief that it represented a step towards a European constitution—which, given the political realities of Europe today, would lead to the subsequent legalization of abortion. She also said she was suspicious of the timing of the referendum, since there was an 18 month window in which to ratify the treaty. “There seemed to be an unseemly rush,” she said. Scallon also noted that the government’s promised referendum on abortion had not yet been held, and questioned whether it would matter if the treaty had been passed.
“If we agree to the Treaty of Nice, we politically endorse a Charter of Fundamental Rights, declared by the European heads of state in Nice last December,” Scallon said. “There is nothing to stop that becoming legally, rather than politically, binding. That charter can be used to bring abortion into Ireland through the European Court of Justice, and we will be helpless.”