Can the approach to an EU referendum taken in one national context be transferred to another? At face value, the answer would be no. Citizens of one member state are a product of the political and social mores of that country, shaped by the economic climes and the political context of the moment, and where they perceive their country to be/or ought to be in Europe.
So from that point of view, ‘How to win an EU referendum’ was a rather ambitious title for a debate on Monday at the Centre for European Policy Studies.
But EU expert Prof. Brigid Laffan, principal of University College Dublin and chair of Ireland for Europe, a pro-treaty group that campaigned strongly in Ireland’s second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, suggests there are general lessons that can be learned for others with referendums in the offing (possibly Iceland on EU membership or Denmark on one or all of their opt-outs at some stage down the line). Ireland, of course, has had four EU referendums in this decade alone.
Chief among the lessons is that governments, ready and able to fight political battles, are not able to effectively deal with referendums and that the centre – as opposed to extreme left and right – is the hardest section of the electorate to get enthused.
To counteract these factors, says the Irish academic, there must be mobilisation beyond political parties to the civil society, while the government of the day has to move quickly to both frame the main message and how it is delivered.
Prof. Laffan detailed all the different measures she and her team took to help turn the No of 2008 to a Yes this year.
They met the editors of newspapers to discuss the Lisbon Treaty referendum, they pulled up state broadcaster RTE when it made any factual mistakes, they confronted archbishops whose flocks might be led astray by the “Catholic right,” they tried to “elevate the context” by moving it beyond a vote on the government and linking a Yes vote to cultural figures in Irish society, such as the Poet Seamus Heaney. The message was tailored – sometimes it was a person standing outside schools – as was the messenger: cultural icons to businessmen and sports personalities.
“We’re talking about marketing; who shouts the loudest. In a referendum situation, the actual text [of the treaty] is irrelevant,” remarked Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform during the debate. By his clear-eyed account, the Irish are not necessarily any more pro-European after having voted for the Lisbon Treaty, nor are they, as was claimed by relieved Irish politicians after the October 3 vote, now the most well-educated about the EU.
An after-vote assessment survey published in November showed that the while 15 percent found the yes side convincing in 2008 (when the government was widely seen to have been overtaken by a vigorous No camp faced by Declan Ganley of Libertas), this figure jumped to 67 percent in 2009. In 2008, the reverse was true. Some 67 percent found the No side convincing last year, a figure that dropped to 18 percent this year.
However, the same survey also showed that the economic context helped swing the vote, with anxious Irish voters hit badly by the fallout-out from the financial crisis. Nearly one in four people voted Yes for economic reasons, the biggest change in grounds for a Yes vote given when compared to Lisbon 1. And this although the Lisbon Treaty, per se, is not going to create jobs.
Well, as I said, there is a limit to how much can be extrapolated from one national context and used in another. However, it was an interesting overview, if only to show the below-the-radar slog work that went into turning the vote around.
#1 by DOCM on December 8, 2009 - 9:00 pm
Those who campaigned successfully to get a yes vote in Ireland deserve every credit. But the question that remains unaswered is how a country, nominally very pro-Europe, could vote no, not once but twice!
This raises serious issues, not alone for the policy community in Ireland but across Europe.
It suggests that institutional Europe has become divorced from that of popular opinion. Now that the Lisbon Treaty is in force, political leaders have a chance to do something about this. In short, the EU must begin to deliver the economic and social benefits which it continually promises.
It was the fear of losing these benefits – and Ireland has benefited more than most – that made the decisive difference in Ireland, not the arguments of the yes and no sides, neither of which were all that pertinent.
#2 by Sean murtagh on December 9, 2009 - 10:08 am
Corporate corruption at its best
#3 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on December 9, 2009 - 10:37 am
I believe this analysis (as basic as it may be) shows that referendum are a media thing, and as Mac Luhan was saying: “the message is the media”. In other terms, as underlined by the article, whatever content is more or less irrelevant, it’s the marketing (both for the no and yes) which counts. This is in my opinion another proof that referendums are all but democratic. They are the typical illusion of democracy, but they only give a way for frustrated citizens to vent out. They could only work in an extremely peaceful, highly politicized and highly educated society. Something none of our European societies is.
#4 by BetterWorld Now on December 9, 2009 - 12:06 pm
Rather than picking off one electorate at a time (as Ms O’Mahony and Ms Laffan are undoubtedly capable of), further integration must be legitimised by an EU-wide referrendum.
Until a shared vision of Europe emerges and is agreed by its citizens, the back room deals and spin doctored national elections only underscore the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU project.
#5 by Patrick on December 9, 2009 - 1:16 pm
The solution is to have a Europe-wide referendum coinciding with the European elections: three options would be given – (a) do you agree to the ratification of the new treaty?, or (b) would you prefer to continue as per the existing arrangements? or (c) would you like your country to withdraw from the EU? A majority result for (c) in any one particular state would result in it being obliged to withdraw using the new Lisbon procedure.
This approach would have two main benefits: (a) weaken the democratic deficit argument, and (b) remove the dead wood from the EU project.
#6 by Paul on December 9, 2009 - 4:03 pm
Al, you might want to familiarise yourself with the Irish Constitution. When ratifying the constitution, the people voted to allow referenda to put to the people on multiple occasions should the Government so choose.
As the Supreme Court ruled, since the final decision always rests with the people, such a (second) referendum is the essence of democracy, and hence fully democratic. You can’t make a mockery of putting something to the demos (i.e. people) unless you are arguing the people are stupid.
Finally, the entire provisions of any, and all, EU Treaties can be repealed at any time should the member states of the EU so decide. As such, democracy is never absent but, rather fully present in the EU.
The only “democratic deficit” that exists within the EU is with people like you who refuse to accept the democratic rules and procedures agreed by democratic governments in accordance with their democratic constitutions.
#7 by Aaretti Siitonen on December 9, 2009 - 5:03 pm
An interesting figure mentioned by Prof. Laffan in a previous presentation was the percentage of Irish citizens who felt that it was unjustified to have a referendum re-run: 9 %. Thus, in Ireland, as opposed to popular perceptions, the people were very happy to be asked again. Whether this is democracy at its best, however, really depends on one’s view of whether we should employ direct democracy or representative democracy – direct democracy can easily be perverted by demagogy and although representative democracy is hardly immune to corruption, it gives representatives time and resources to make informed choices.
#8 by Fergus O'Rourke on December 10, 2009 - 10:20 pm
The Irish could scarcely be more pro-EU than they already were. And if there is now an electorate more educated on Eu Constitutional issues, I would be interested to hear which it is.
#9 by Marcel on December 10, 2009 - 11:17 pm
Simple, you win these referendums if the pro-EU crowd can convince enough people of the OUTRIGHT LIE that the EU is democratic. And of course, to keep voting until the electorate gives the ‘desired’ answer.
Its the yes side that lied through its teeth.
And of course, Irelands prosperity has had NOTHING to do with the EEC/EU, but everything with its tax regime (which the EU seeks to undermine, by the way, via harmonization which is the new word for gleichschaltung).
Spain and Ireland would have been equally prosperous without the EU, and trade would be at least as intensive as it is with it.
@BetterWorld Now (5)
the EU project (as you call it) was specifically designed to ABOLISH national democracy and impose EU-rule-by-decree whilst all the way fooling gullible people that the EU was really democratic.
I do not want EU wide referendums because I don’t want corrupt Greeks or Italians voting as to what the laws in my country should be. Only the people and politicians of my country should be involved in that, not the undemocratic EU.