Magazine / Current / Ireland's No / Article | 25/06/2008

The naysayers

Ireland has benefited from an economic upsurge ever since it joined the EU in 1973. Today the country's gross national product lies above the European average. Michael Marsh looks at why the Irish are nonetheless critical of Europe.

Two weeks ago, in the only referendum to be held in an EU member state on the matter, Ireland voted no to the Lisbon Treaty. It did so by 54-46 with a turnout in excess of 50 percent – quite high by the standards of referendums in Ireland.

No, yes, no, no: counting the votes of the Irish referendum

Photo: AP

How could this happen in a country which has benefited so much from its membership of the Union and which is normally seen to be one of the most pro-European of all member states, and in which the government and almost all of the political parties advocated a yes vote?

No anti-EU campaigns

The answer is that support for the Union is not the same as support for more integration, and moreover, even this support is not without reservations. The no campaign raised concerns about the consequences of the Treaty, with the most commonly seen billboard saying: Europe has been good for us - Let's keep it that way. The only party in parliament calling for a no, Sinn Féin, also ran a slogan saying simply: Ireland can get a better deal. In other words, neither of the main organizations on the no side couched their campaign as anti-EU. Instead they sought to prize some voters away from the pro-EU roots and get them to vote no on this occasion.

The reasons behind the rejection

Why should such voters do so? Because, they were told, the Treaty would weaken Ireland's traditional neutrality, a value much prized by many; it would damage the economy through changing Ireland's business friendly tax regime, threatening jobs; the continued influx of foreign workers was undermining legislation protecting Irish workers; while the loss of its Commissioner would lessen Ireland influence within the Union. Meanwhile Radical right wing Catholic groups claimed it would increase prostitution and drugs and bring in abortion – a message rejected by the Catholic Church, but still widely accepted as true.
These messages were spread though a no campaign every bit as active as that run by the major parties on the yes side. A private organization, Libertas, probably spent more than the two main parties - Fianna Faíl and Fine Gael - put together. All the yes side could offer was general assurance that a yes vote would be good for Ireland.

Asking the Irish twice

What happens now? This is no longer in Irish hands. Another referendum remains a possibility. It happened before, when the Irish voters needed to be asked twice, in 2001 and in 2002, to approve the Nice Treaty. Many no voters may indeed have expected to be asked again, given the no campaign's message that a better deal could be made.
However, it is up to the government to decide what a "better deal” might consist of in practice. Keeping a commissioner, perhaps a symbol of Ireland's potential influence, would be a good start. Voters did have real concerns about neutrality and taxation and these must be addressed, perhaps through a protocol attached to the Treaty. But nobody should be under any illusion that there are easy solutions, or that such changes will guarantee a yes next time.

Michael Marsh

Michael Marsh is professor of Comparative Political Behaviour at Trinity College Dublin. He lives in Dublin. His last publication: Michael Marsh, Richard Sinnott, John Garry ...
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » EU Policy, » Domestic Policy, » Ireland
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Domestic Policy, » Ireland