There are political commentators so soaked in cynicism that they claim the people of Ireland pay no attention to the utterances of the great leaders of our day. Let them contemplate the outcome of the Nice Treaty referendum and the lead given to the people by two of our greatest statesmen, one, alas, temporarily in relative oblivion (forgotten but not gone), the other still bestriding great corridors of power.
I refer of course to John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn.
Just six months ago to the day, December 13th, 2000, these visionaries rose in the Dail to offer their observations on the Treaty of Nice, negotiated over the previous weekend. Bertie Ahern modestly had disclaimed media evaluations of the treaty as being a victory for Ireland; he said it was a victory for Europe. He congratulated his staff, diplomats, even Brian Cowen for the successful outcome.
John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn were having none of it.
John Bruton rose to recall his own period as president of Europe, when he made it clear to the continent that Ireland would never give way on its right to a European commissioner. That right had now been conceded by his successor, he mourned. Hear, hear, said RuairI Quinn.
John Bruton continued: That the Taoiseach would have the lack of self-knowledge to quote media reports describing the outcome of Nice as a victory for Ireland, media reports I can only regard as sycophantic, shows how little in touch he is with what he did. This is one of the weakest negotiating outcomes achieved by an Irish government in the European forum since Ireland joined the Union, he said. And not just for Ireland: this is a very bad day for Europe; a political mistake of serious magnitude. A bad four days' work.
Ruairi Quinn regularly disclaims taking pleasure, or at least great pleasure, and perhaps it was not a surprise that on December 13th last, during that debate on the Nice Treaty, he began: "It gives me no great pleasure to say that what was agreed and conceded by the Taoiseach and the delegation he led, no matter how well intentioned, and I do not doubt the goodness of his intentions, was a travesty." The Taoiseach had been conned, he said.
Yes, said John Bruton. It was a disaster, said Ruairi Quinn. So much so that when history is written about what happened in Nice, it will be said it was the point at which the spirit of the founding fathers during the Coal and Steel Treaty, the Treaty of Rome, and the unique creation of Schumann, Monet, De Gasperi was neutered in a particular way. He managed to recover from that morbidity, however, to offer the observation that there was time for the leaders of Europe to mend their ways. There is nothing particularly wrong with a delay (in the implementation of the treaty), he said.
The Irish people took John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn at their word. What were they to do when two such respected leaders of the nation were to describe the Treaty of Nice in such apocalyptic terms other than vote against?
Yes, we know that later on John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn said different things, but don't all politicians do that? And they probably had to. But didn't they reveal their true feelings in the first flush of response to the negotiation of the treaty?
It has been magnanimous of Ruairi Quinn to attribute the credit for the referendum outcome to Mary Harney - for her coolness to the unique creation of Schumann, Monet, De Gasperi - when he himself led the way so splendidly, albeit on the coat-tails of John Bruton, six months ago. And by the way, wasn't Ruairi's contribution to the SDLP performance in the Northern elections also quite dazzling? Just think what he can do for Labour in the next general election here.
The rejection of the Nice Treaty is excellent. It stalls, even if only for a few months, the extension of a governance, the main feature of which is to exclude the populace of Europe from having any real say on the doings of the Euro-elite. For centuries Europe moved towards democracy, however fitfully. But with the European Union, Europe has moved back towards oligarchy, which, by definition, is outside any process of meaningful accountability to the people as a whole.
When this point is raised it is countered in the first instance by outright denial: it is not true that the most powerful institution of the European Union is not democratically accountable, for each minister on the Council is accountable to his or her own parliament. When that piece of nonsense falls on its face (How could a single member of the Council be held responsible to his or her own parliament for decisions taken by all 15 members of the Council?) there is a different tack. That is that, well yes, there is a democratic-deficit problem which must be looked at but in the meantime let's get on with the big-boy stuff and look at the frilly democratic bits at some later stage.
Well, let them look at the frilly democratic bits right now and start thinking about how to bring real accountability into the European Union and stop treating the people of Europe as just a tiresome brake on the unique creation of Schumann, Monet, De Gasperi.
vbrowne@irish-times.ie