Dick Roche has gone on the offensive to boost support for the Lisbon Treaty. But the prospect of the referendum fills Dennis Kennedywith dread
When is some politician, or some party, going to have the nous to come out and admit that the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, far from being a higher form of democracy, is nothing but a pain in the neck, a costly distraction, and a field day for old warhorses, cranks and flat-earthers?
Richard Sinnott and Stephen Quinlan (Opinion and Analysis, January 30th) detailed some of the complexities surrounding the use of the referendum as a means of measuring public opinion, let alone a mechanism for deciding national policy on a major issue. They reminded us that the Nice Treaty was first of all rejected because 19 per cent of the Irish electorate voted against it, and was then approved because, a year later, 31 per cent of the same electorate decided that, after all, they liked it.
Earlier, the Danes had exhibited a similarly convenient change of mind over the euro when their government suggested they should - again showing how meaningless a referendum vote can be.
More recently, French and Dutch voters appeared to shake the very foundations of the European project by rejecting the proposed European constitution.
But if we look more closely at those referendums in 2005, we see that only 31 per cent of the French electorate said No, while in the Netherlands it was still only 38 per cent of those entitled to vote. In none of these cases did a majority of the electorate exist either for or against the proposition.
In all these instances the referendums were held to approve, or not, an action already taken by the governments. So, the four referendum Nos were popular votes against key government policy, and, therefore, arguably votes of no confidence in the government-in-office.
Yet in none of these instances did a government resign, as it would almost certainly have had to do in the case of a similar defeat in parliament. In fact, there is no general public clamour for a government to resign after a referendum defeat because, certainly in Ireland, the policy set out in the referendum is usually endorsed by any possible alternative government.
This is one main reason why referendums on EU treaties contribute very little to any real understanding of the EU. Nor do they promote sensible discussion of where, in the detailed clauses of the treaty, Ireland's real interests may lie - the treaty is a fait accompli, and the referendum is not held to discuss fine points of detail, but to say Yes or No to the whole shebang. So, if I still had a vote in the Republic, I would have to vote Yes, even though I do not at all like some parts of the Lisbon Treaty. I could not vote No just because I think it is foolish to create the post of a president of Europe. (Though, come to think of it, the idea of the appalling Blair getting the job might just tip me over into the head-bangers' camp.)
The time for such debate is before the treaty is signed, not after, and the place is the Dáil and Seanad, the political parties, academia and the media, not a referendum campaign. All that does is give a platform to those with a special agenda, or a grievance against the Government, perhaps with little or no relevance to the contents of the Lisbon Treaty.
If we must have referendums, then why not a blocking mechanism, to act as an ultimate brake on a government that may have lost the run of itself? Under this, any government proposal, such as a fundamental amendment to the Constitution, deemed to require approval at referendum, would pass unless the No vote both exceeded the Yes and was at least 40 per cent of the electorate.
Besides all that, is it not time we revisited the problem we thought had been solved by the 1972 constitutional amendment, which, it was assumed, meant no future changes arising from membership of the EU would have to be put to referendum?
"No provision of this Constitution," it said, "invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State."
Surely a couple of top lawyers could be spared from a tribunal to rework that into a court-proof amendment that would cover all future evolution of the EU?
We could then put that to a referendum.
• Dennis Kennedy, a formerIrish Times journalist, lives in Belfast