Ireland’s No
In a higher than normal turnout for a referendum,
the Lisbon treaty was clearly rejected by 53.4% to 46.6%. As the No side
had trailed in every poll until the final week, this was a major shock
for the political and business establishment in Ireland. KEVIN
McLOUGHLIN, Socialist Party (CWI Ireland) reports.
THE GOVERNMENT, ITS new Taoiseach (prime minister)
Brian Cowen, most of the parliamentary opposition, including the Labour
Party, the bosses’ and farmers’ organisations, most of the trade union
leaderships, churches, the media and the rest of the establishment
combined their vast resources to call for a Yes vote. They are stunned
by the defeat. This is also an important setback for the big-business
interests and the political elite who control the EU.
The Socialist Party (CWI Ireland) was an important
part of the No campaign. We combined our independent activities with
participation in the broader, loose, Campaign Against the EU
Constitution, which put forward a progressive and left position. Sinn
Féin, the only party in parliament that opposed the treaty, was
prominent, particularly in the media. But its central demand, that the
treaty should be renegotiated, was weak and, in part, perhaps a
preparation for supporting such treaties when it enters a future
government.
Socialist Party representative, Joe Higgins, played
a critical role in the campaign. Joe was the most capable public figure
on the No side. This is generally recognised. In the Evening Herald
newspaper, media analyst Terry Prone cited Joe Higgins as one of the ten
reasons why Lisbon was defeated: "They failed to realise the impact
mavericks like Joe Higgins have. Joe Higgins is an institution. He is
more than a curiosity. People who haven’t a left-wing bone in their body
identify with him because they find him straight and passionate and
witty. If he said healthcare was going to be privatised, it rankled with
them".
Unlike the last treaty, where the establishment won
the Yes vote with the mantra, ‘do not deny ten countries in eastern
Europe the right to join the EU’, this time they could not manufacture
any strong arguments. The Yes side argued that Lisbon was mainly about
‘modernising’ the EU, changing its structures so that a bigger EU could
work more efficiently. It tried to diminish the important political,
economic and military aspects in the treaty document.
Points of contention
THE TREATY WAS written to make it more difficult to
pin down its neo-liberal and anti-working class content. It included a
so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights, which added no new legal rights
for workers but was used by Labour and trade union leaders to justify a
Yes vote.
Article 188c of the treaty, by removing national
government vetoes on trade deals, opened up the prospect that financial
speculators could cherry-pick the most profitable aspects of health and
education. It put the right to profit and exploit at the centre of the
EU, above the rights of workers to decent pay and conditions. It further
facilitated the European Court of Justice to continue making rulings
that favour big business over workers (such as the Laval and Rüffert
judgments).
Privatisation and workers’ rights were major points
of contention throughout the campaign and the Socialist Party helped to
force these issues onto the agenda. Mary Harney, health minister,
bitterly complained that Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party had put up
posters all over the country claiming that health was going to be
privatised.
Day in and day out, the Yes side, including the
Labour and union leaders, bluntly accused the Socialist Party and the No
side of ‘scaremongering’. They claimed that services and rights would be
safeguarded by a Yes vote. In this context, it is very significant that
the treaty was explicitly rejected by key sections of the working class.
An important question emerged during the campaign:
do you trust what the establishment is saying about the treaty? Clearly,
key sections of the working class showed they did not! After 15 years of
economic boom, and the lack of a political alternative and mass
struggles by working people, people’s mood, confidence and attitudes
have been affected. However, the rejection of Lisbon was a definite
statement by the working class.
There were some reactionary elements on the No side,
such as Libertas, a front set up by the neo-liberal billionaire, Declan
Ganley. Coir brought together fringe religious elements and
anti-abortion reactionaries. These groups were given undue prominence,
particularly in the last week of the campaign, in an attempt to frighten
people to vote Yes. However, the issues they highlighted – the threat of
higher corporate taxation and abortion, etc – did not get significant
resonance.
Media & government distortion
IN THE AFTERMATH of the vote, the media and the
government are trying to distort the reasons why people voted No. Their
initial attempts, immediately after the result, were crude and
laughable. Fear of conscription into a future EU army was a factor, some
tried to claim! Similarly hollow claims were made on fears of abortion
and euthanasia. Now the Irish government has established a research
project to "clarify the reasons underlying the rejection of the treaty".
The establishment is trying to shift focus away from
the fundamental questions and manufacture the view that secondary issues
were the basis for the No vote. They hope to shift opinion, possibly
creating the basis for a Yes vote in a re-run referendum.
In the course of the campaign, the worsening
position of many ordinary people in small towns and rural communities,
small farmers and fishermen, was highlighted. EU agreements and trade
deals, as well as the cost of fuel, are wiping out many people’s
livelihoods.
Among workers, the myth that the EU was ‘worker
friendly’ had already been challenged by their practical experiences.
That Lisbon favoured big business, would further diminish democratic
control with the move to qualified majority voting, and would impose
policies that hit working people, was instinctively understood by many.
Defence of the idea of Irish neutrality and opposition to European
militarism were additional, important factors.
Neither the Irish nor European political and
business establishments have any intention of pulling back from their
neo-liberal attacks on the working class. Therefore, the campaign to
distort and confuse the issues regarding the referendum and the EU will
continue.
A Eurobarometer survey specifically asked people if
defending Irish (corporate) tax rates and blocking European legislation
to allow gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia were the reasons they
voted No. Only 8% of No voters agreed. However, as part of the campaign
of distortion, those who argued for a No vote on this reactionary basis
are being given significant coverage by the media.
People did not vote No out of ignorance. While there
was a general feeling that there was a lack of accessible information,
most were quite aware of the arguments. In a Sunday Business Post/Red C
poll, nearly 90% gave actual reasons beyond not knowing enough for how
they voted.
The polls are being used to confuse the factors
behind the no vote. Incredibly, Eurobarometer made no mention of health,
education, public services or workers’ rights at all. This illustrates
the extent of the manipulation and propaganda campaign. However, in one
poll that did ask people about workers’ rights, 76% of No voters
disagreed with the statement that Lisbon "strengthened the protection of
workers’ rights". Numerous polls indicate that even the majority of Yes
voters thought the No campaigners were more convincing.
The class divide
WHAT CANNOT BE denied is the class basis of the
vote. Fifty-three percent of those who voted in rural areas and small
towns voted No. In the main metropolitan areas the vote was more 50-50.
However, here the class lines were even more sharply drawn: 60% of
manual workers did not vote but, of those who did, 74% voted No; 58% of
professionals and 60% of self-employed people voted Yes, as did 66% of
senior managers. Amongst women 56% voted No. While only 36% of 18-24
year-olds voted, 65% voted No; 72% of student voters voted No. The fact
that young people did not experience the crisis of the 1980s, and are
likely to be less ‘thankful’ for the boom and the EU, and internet use,
are probably important factors in the youth vote.
In Dublin West where Joe Higgins was a TD, in the
more upper-middle class parts of Castleknock, the Yes vote averaged
67-71%. In the Hartstown working-class area, where the overwhelming
majority of homes are privately owned, the No vote was 70.8%. In
Blakestown, which is a working-class area with a higher proportion of
social housing, of those who voted, 83.4% voted No!
This vote does not mean that the Lisbon treaty is
gone. Preparing the EU for an intensification of competition with the US
and China, and the scramble for markets, resources and influence, is
vital for big business. If, following this vote, the ratification of the
treaty continues by the other EU governments, it is likely the EU
establishment will try to proceed. They will possibly pressurise Ireland
to vote again, or threaten that the Irish will be ‘left behind’!
The best follow-up to this victory would be an
active response by working people in the workplaces, communities,
schools and universities, to build an opposition to capitalist
neo-liberal policies.
The Socialist Party will do all in its power to help
build such a movement. We ran a vibrant No campaign, further developing
our national profile. Crucially, the vote exposes the gulf between
working people and the establishment, including the leaders of Labour
and the trade unions. This poses the vital need for building a new mass
party for working people.
|