Putting the lies right. When it comes to the second Irish referendum, European personalities including several members of the institutions, have not respected the principle of non-interference in a national campaign. The reasons at the basis of this principle remain valid. The people of every nation are free to make their own choices and jealously guard their prerogatives, and the impression that there could be influence from outside can upset susceptibilities and push the result the other way. In this case, it is not a matter of propaganda, but simply of correcting the lies. During the first referendum, the concern for impartiality had meant that national authorities left fallacious arguments without response, thus largely determining the result. Is there any need to point out some of the pillars upholding the campaign for the “no” vote? It was said the Lisbon Treaty would force Ireland to give up its neutrality (with the youth of Ireland one day finding itself involved in an armed conflict) and to allow divorce and abortion. Also, it was said, Ireland would lose the right to have a European commissioner of its own nationality. All that was quite untrue.
A few truths, without propaganda. Today, the political decision-makers, whether national or not, are seeking to restore the truth. José Manuel Barroso has clarified that only entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will ensure that every member state has a European commissioner of its own nationality. The Nice Treaty, which will remain in force for an indefinite time if Lisbon fails, makes it an obligation for the number of commissioners to be below the number of member states (Mr Barroso did not say so but I would add that, in the event of the Lisbon Treaty being gridlocked, there could be many governments reticent to the appointment of an Irish commissioner). The current European commissioner of Irish nationality, Charlie McCreevy, has announced a radical fall in foreign investment in Ireland if the country is on the fringe of European construction (US investments had been estimated at $80 billion, creating 100,000 jobs - because it is the open European market that attracts them). Jean-Pierre Audy, MEP, has pointed out that the Lisbon Treaty will introduce EP/Council codecision on agricultural matters, allowing the EP to determine the Community preference for farm products (one example of this is for Irish meat over Brazilian meat) as well as the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy. The advantages of participation in single currency have been evoked by several sources, as well as joint declarations that correct the lies of the first electoral campaign.
In the meantime, Mr Ganley, who had undertaken to give up politics after the serious blow dealt upon him from the Irish people during the European elections, has once more decided to devote some of his billions to the “no” vote campaign, and he has begun to spread lies, for example, regarding Ireland's loss of influence in majority decisions in Council. Legal analysis proves this is just not the case. But will there still be some Irish who believe him?
Freedom of choice. The above comments in no way point to a positive vote. They simply express the hope that the Irish speak out without being influenced by any misunderstandings or lies. They should choose according to their own convictions. If they consider it preferable for their country not to take part in the consolidation of European construction, their choice will be respected, without lamentation or reproach. There is nothing compulsory about European unification. The Lisbon Treaty would even bring in an exit clause. The three options are still open: - not to join, to join without then taking part in further consolidation, or pull out altogether. As soon as European construction began, each nation chose according to its own wishes. The main thing is that the choice of those who hope to strengthen integration should not be hampered, even in the form of enhanced cooperation or in the form of a majority mechanism for entry into force of new treaties (there is earnest reflection on this).
Questions on other matters also. Ireland is not the only question being raised. Germany has overcome its legal complications but we shall come back to its overall attitude later in this column, on the basis of a text by Jacques Delors. Poland seems to have gone beyond its internal difficulties and the ratification procedure will be complete as soon as the Irish “yes” has been acquired. Reticence is mainly to be seen in Prague. In the Czech Republic, it is a question of months of delay in ratifying the treaty. In this case, too, one should not over-dramatise matters, as Czech decision-makers are free to make their own choice. If they prefer to have an EU under the Nice Treaty, there will necessarily be fewer European commissioners, and there is no obligation to have a commissioner of Czech nationality.
(F.R./transl.jl)