Globalaffairs

Issue 17/October-November 2009
By Glen Ruffle

Lisbon has finally been passed after the Irish were made to vote again. Yet the process exposed how the EU breaks its own rules, how the mass media can change societies, and how vulnerable Ireland now is to the Lisbon Treaty.

It was not a surprise. Given the vast amounts of resources thrown at it, the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was a foregone conclusion. To be truly democratic, of course, we should now have a third referendum, a deciding vote. All we have now is one ‘yes’ and one ‘no’ [1]. Yet Europe has what it wants now, so such democratic niceties can be laid aside.

The second referendum was an exercise in power and manipulation that the Soviet Union would have been proud of. It harnessed the full power of every available medium and used them to persuade the people of Ireland to vote ‘yes’. Business, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Irish government all combined forces to manipulate a ‘Yes’ vote [2].

The problems…

Under the usual rules and diplomatic conventions for national referendums, foreign interference is regarded as both unhelpful and an insult to a nations’ democracy. However, these ideas were thrown aside for Ireland, with European Commissioners and Europhile politicians flocking into Ireland and making frequent comments to try and contrive an Irish ‘yes’ vote [3].

The political interference in Ireland’s decision was combined with massive business funding for the ‘yes’ campaign. With the financial power of Intel and Ryanair, amongst others, backing the ‘Yes’ side, the ‘No’ campaigners had difficulty paying enough to get their message out to the people. The money supplied to the ‘yes’ side could be against EU company and tax laws [3], but once again, the result is what the European elite want, and so the European Court of Justice is unlikely to change the outcome of the referendum.

Media manipulation

Many newspapers, television and radio stations also failed to provide proper, unbiased coverage. Many are owned by ‘yes’ campaign supporters, and a combination of ignorance, bias and omission combined to give the ‘no’ campaign poor or minimal coverage. This is testament to the power of the media, and the way it can shape and manipulate thoughts and opinions, and control the destiny of nations.

The unfair portrayal of the campaign and the failure of the media to provide a clear alternative voice exposes ideas that we all live in free and open societies as notions of fiction. We regard it as normal that the media is not free in Russia, China and Middle Eastern states, but in Western Europe?

But time and again examples are piling up of media bias; be it anti-Israeli reporting, blaming Russia for the conflict in South Ossetia, or with providing fair information on the European Union, the media simply cannot be completely trusted and relied upon. It is vital that the people of Europe do their own investigations and read the original documents, rather than trust others to tell them.

Controlling societies by the media has been practiced since the days of Freud and his nephew, Edward Bernays, the founder of Public Relations [4]. They realised that it was possible to manipulate people psychologically. The ‘yes’ campaign used many of these well-known and tested methods - bright, colorful adverts with positive messages and the word ‘yes’ emblazoned across them helped reassure people and convince them that the European Union was a friendly, kind force, and not a threat to their sovereignty.

Psychological games

The Irish ‘yes’ campaign also received illegal funding from parties in the European Parliament. They are allowed to use taxpayers money to fund informational adverts; but the adverts that appeared presented very clearly only one side of the debate. As well as being non-partisan, the ‘Yes’ campaign played mercilessly on people’s fears, talking as if Europe and Lisbon would solve their problems, not as if they were the problems. One poster said “It’s simple. I’m safer in Europe” [5], which subconsciously says, ‘without the EU, you will not be safe’. Safe from what? Invasion? From who? Yet this shameless play on subconscious fears worked.

Let us not, as the Commission did (Commission President, Jose Manuel-Barroso, said “I see the yes vote as a sign of confidence by the Irish people in the EU [6]“), say this was a triumphant vote for Europe. It was a fear-driven vote by people in a hard economic recession who did not understand what they were voting for.

Holes in the opt-outs

The Irish government claimed it had dealt with the worries of the voters with a special agreement clarifying the Treaty of Lisbon. Yet this agreement has no legal precedent and is an entirely new entity. If it is taken to the European Court of Justice and tested, it could fall apart, as such an agreement has no legal heritage and has not been tested in law.

The Charter [7]

Under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is given the same value as the Treaty of Lisbon. The Irish were concerned about abortion being enforced by Lisbon. Whilst it stated nothing about abortion directly, Article 2 of the Charter gives everyone the right to life, and Article 24 gives children rights. Yet there is nothing to define when life begins, and who ‘everyone’ is. Article 3.1 talks of respect for a persons’ physical and mental integrity - and this could be used in a court in case to make abortion legal in Ireland. If the judges decided that a baby is part of the mother until it is born, and that a ‘woman’s right to choose’ beats that of a babies right to live, then a woman could claim it is her right to terminate the child, because it is affecting her ‘physical integrity’. And Ireland would be unable to stop this, because the European Court of Justice is the place where decisions would be made, not Ireland [8].

Lisbon also allows, under Article 15 and 45 for everyone in the EU to live and work anywhere else in the EU. There now is no power in Ireland to stop immigration. And Article 34 allows these people to claim social security from their host state. This means that people who have not paid in to the system can withdraw benefits from it. Brussels, of course, loves this - it increases the pressure for a common European tax and welfare system.

The debate also had a glimpse of how Europe can never be the super-state that the Euro-elite truly want. When Irish descendants with English accents were given time in debates to speak for the ‘no’ campaign, they were accused of being foreign interferers [9]. Strangely, that accusation was not allowed to be made at the European Commissioners, or host of other ‘yes’ campaigners from abroad. These underlying national identities, fears and hatreds simply cannot be erased by an undemocratic super-state that does not connect with the people. Europe may be united politically, but it will be by force and not by heart.

Yet none of this will matter to the EU. Charlie McCreevy, Ireland’s very own Commissioner for the internal market, said that most other countries in Europe would have voted no if they had been asked on the same Lisbon text [10]. But now Europe has the result it wants; and it will say it was a democratic vote of confidence. And the integration process will role onwards, towards the treaty goal of ‘ever closer union’. And everyone in Europe knows that there is no point in voting ‘no’ ever again in a European referendum. They’ll just ask you to vote again, until you give the correct answer.

Glen Ruffle
MSc worked for Global Vision and helped to analyze the Lisbon Treaty during the British ratification process.

Sources/Bibliography

[1] Third referendum idea from http://www.progressive-vision.org/

[2] Bruno Waterfield (2009) ‘European Commission accused of breaching rules with Ryanair stunt’, 25/09/09, Daily Telegraph, at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/6228088/European-Commission-accused-of-breaching-rules-with-Ryanair-stunt.html

[3] Anthony Coughland (2009) ‘Looks like a heavy defeat’, Saturday 3rd October 2009, at:
http://yourfreedomandours.blogspot.com/2009/10/looks-like-heavy-defeat.html
and:
Anthony Coughland (2009) ‘Statement by Anthony Coughlan on the Lisbon-two referendum result’, Saturday 2rd October 2009, at: http://www.nationalplatform.org/2009/10/03/statement-by-anthony-coughlan-on-the-lisbon-two-referendum-result/

[4] Adam Curtis (2002) ‘The Century of the Self’, a BBC production, shown on BBC channels Monday 29 April - Thursday 2 May 2002. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml

[5] ‘Ireland for Europe’ blog (2009) ‘The Yes Campaign moves to such great heights’, including photos of adverts, and the ‘It’s Simple. I’m safer in Europe’ advert. Access at: http://blog.irelandforeurope.ie/?p=330

[6] Jose Manuel-Barroso (2009) ‘Thank you Ireland’, 03/10/09, at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/index_en.htm

[7] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[8] COIR campaign (2009) Lisbon and abortion, at: http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/info-euguide/lisbon-and-abortion

[9] Open Europe Blog (2009) Sticking to the point, at: http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/sticking-to-point.html
And:
Veronica McDermott (2009) ‘The Lisbon Treaty - the consequences of yes or no’, 10/09/09 at: http://www.irishelection.com/2009/09/the-lisbon-treaty-the-consequences-of-yes-or-no/
And:
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/101313-do-lisbon-referendums-illustrate-racism-ireland-among-little-irelanders.html

[10] Charlemagne (2009) ‘A commission report-card’, page 50 of The Economist, September 26th - October 2nd 2009. Volume 392. Number 8650

The views and opinions of contributors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Global Affairs.