The Green convention was a close-run thing, writes Deaglán de Breadún, Political Correspondent
So near and yet so far. Given their pessimism in advance of the special convention, the Green Party leadership has to be as surprised as anyone else at getting so close to the two-thirds vote required to adopt a policy of support for the Lisbon Treaty.
Despite making the necessary compromises to get into power, the Greens still have something of a quasi-religious air about them. Looking at the composition of Saturday's meeting, there was hardly a business suit to be seen. There was a fair proportion of ageing hippies and young idealists: nobody looked like they were on the make or on the take.
The good news for Gormley and his parliamentary party is that the stability of the Government is not under threat. The bad news is that, if they had played it differently, they might well have got the extra 4 per cent needed to bring them over the line.
A mere 13 votes added to the Yes total would have achieved the magic two-thirds majority.
As an egalitarian party, there was a fair degree of resentment when the six TDs and two senators declared in advance they were voting Yes. The softly-softly approach would have been more diplomatic and productive.
There was also considerable and unnecessary confusion over procedure. A so-called "technical" device was invented, entitled "Motion C" on the agenda, which was aimed at creating a comfort-zone for the Green Ministers in the event that the party failed to adopt a policy in favour of Lisbon.
A classic example of political "hob-lawyerism", Motion C was replete with grandiose language about recognising that the Ministers were "obliged by virtue of collective Cabinet responsibility to facilitate ratification of this treaty". A two-thirds majority was also required in this instance.
The motion was unnecessary and both sides saw it as a distraction. There was a consensus on Saturday to take it off the agenda. If it had proceeded to a vote and the required two-thirds majority was not forthcoming, the special convention would have ended on a note of utter confusion which could have caused major ripples on the currently-placid surface of the three-party coalition.
Greens love procedure and will never do anything in a simple manner if a complicated one is available. The debate on the treaty was led by three speakers from either side and contributors from the floor were chosen by lot. As a result, former leader Trevor Sargent never got to take the floor. Although his profile has dipped somewhat, he is still a very influential figure in the party. His words carried great weight at the original Mansion House debate on entering coalition and could well have swayed the requisite number of votes in favour of the treaty on Saturday.
Quite apart from the implications for the internal politics of the Green Party and the stability of the Government, Saturday's vote is bad news for the Yes campaign as a whole. Although the Greens protested that they had no funds (did they ever?), the party would still have been an effective force in the debate on the treaty. No doubt Saturday's vote will be registered with displeasure in Europe. Ireland is the only member-state holding a referendum but the debate will now take place without an official Green Party position being advanced. In some ways it will be like Hamlet without the Prince.