Probably the most fascinating aspect of referendums on Europe is the constant evoking of the doomsday scenarios. Seriously “The Sky Will Fall In” rings just a bit narrow after it’s outing in the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice twice and now Lisbon twice. In fairness the Yes side can fall into this trap too and promise the sun the moon and the stars in every treaty but as No votes have only come into vogue more recently they have more form.
The unfortunate and humdrum reality of it is Lisbon is quite a mundane and straightforward affair. A few changes to the institutions, greater democracy for sure, a bit simpler when consolidated and a few streamlined effects. We will probably know what the AG said about the need for a referendum, it may have been connected to the High Representative on Foreign Policy or the new provisions for amendment although it is hard to see, possibly a more permanent president of the European Council. Interestingly the latter hasn’t featured at all in public debate.
The real treaty to get worked up about was Maastricht. This was where the EU was established and the Euro finally rolled out. This was a serious treaty with serious ramifications. Does anybody remember the debate? Somehow we managed to get it all tied up with abortion and even run three separate abortion referendums on the same say!
The EU manages to get completely hung up on institutional naval gazing all the time. This is hugely problematic for Yes campaigners as they have to get people worked up about arcane and technocratic issues. Other countries just vote on these in parliament.
In separate posts I’m compiling an title by title analysis of the treaty which hopefully will be complete before polling day. I now am confident about this as the vast bulk of the work on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union involves three words repeated over and again – “no change here”. Apart form the extension of QMV, provided for in the Crotty case, there are no significant changes to whole swathes of the treaties. The changes to institutions and some of the declaratory stuff all sites in the first short Treaty on European Union.
In relaity we are being asked to believe that a body that has been immensely positive for Irleand is suddenly going to chnage and turn on us because of this treaty and there are somehow parts of it which are out to get us. Eoghan Harris puts it well in his analogy of the EU as a marriage!
On another private forum I’m involved with this came up for debate. Those arguing for a No vote clearly didn’t realise this and where quoting whole chunks of text that are unchanged. When it was drawn to their attention they went on to say that people are voting on all the articles again…this form people who think a second referendum is undemocratic!