The new EU Constitution

national | eu | opinion/analysis Thursday July 08, 2004 01:04 by MW markwalshe at caramail dot com

Much celebration and praise, but what does the new EU Constitution contain?

As the Irish presidency of the EU came to an end last week, the political establishment was unanimous on the agreement reached on a new constitutional treaty: it was an unqualified success. The Irish Times hailed it as ‘historic and unprecedented’ and praised the Government for a job well done:

“The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, his Ministers and officials must be congratulated for the intense and focused work which has brought it to a conclusion.” (‘Historic and unprecedented’, Irish Times editorial, 19 June 2004)

According to Minister for Europe, Dick Roche, speaking on Saturday View (3 July 2004), press clippings from across Europe showed that there was ‘extraordinary praise’ for the Government’s achievements. On the same programme, Fine Gael’s Gay Mitchell, who recently topped the poll in the European elections in the Dublin constituency, praised the media and the Government:

“The media has been very generous in its praise and I think that that praise is due. I think that the presidency has done a very good job... Fair play to the Government.” (Saturday View)

Even Vincent Browne, who has described the new constitution as ‘deeply-flawed’, joined in the chorus, praising Bertie Ahern, ‘this ordinary man [who] has had spectacular success in the last few days.’ (‘A nice man deserving of praise’, Irish Times, 23 June 2004)

And we, the people, are expected to share in the glory. Dick Roche again:

“It is a pity that we in Ireland can't, when we are successful, as a nation — and I don't mean politically — but when we are successful as a nation, I think it's a pity that we don't bask in it. We as a nation should take pride [in our achievements]”. (Saturday View)

Given the near-universal praise from all sections of the political establishment, from all the parties to practically the entire media, it’s not clear who he believes the ‘begrudgers’ and the ‘cynics’ to be. But what are we to take pride in? Why, as working people, should we celebrate the ‘achievements’ of the Irish presidency?

Continuing to trumpet the ‘achievements’ of the presidency, Dick Roche hints at the answer:

“We did miraculous things: we launched the Lisbon Agenda, which is going to be important in terms of people’s jobs, even if they don't know it.” (Saturday View)

And that’s precisely the point: even if they don’t know it. Dick Roche knows well that the Government has successfully avoided debate on what’s actually in the new EU Constitution, of which the Lisbon Agenda is a crucial part. Consequently, we don’t know what the Lisbon Agenda is, nor what implications it will have for our jobs.

So how can we possibly celebrate the the Government’s ‘achievements’? Are we expected to assume that it will be in our interests? Are we expected to believe that the Government will act in our interests in the same way it does in relation to Health and Education, in relation to the invasion of Iraq, in relation to the Nice referenda, in relation to the Citizenship Referendum?

The media has been crucially subservient in helping the Government avoid the debate by focusing on key questions such as whether Bertie Ahern might be the right man for president of the European Commission! The Irish Times ran a sycophantic, cringe-making editorial on the matter, which was entitled ‘Allez, Bertie, Allez!’ (Go, Bertie, Go!) and began: ‘Wanted: safe, tactful pair of politically tested hands from a centre party and small country.’ (‘Allez, Bertie, Allez!’, Irish Times editorial, 22 June 2004)

The media often portrays people as apathetic, uninvolved, almost oblivious to political matters, particularly in relation to the EU. Headlines such as ‘90% of teenagers polled unable to name local MEP’ (Irish Times, 7 May 2004) suggest that people are not really interested and therefore there’s no point in going through the ‘minutiae’.

On Saturday View (mentioned earlier), an RTE reporter did a vox pop on the streets of Dublin. One of the questions was: ‘Can you name the country that the EU presidency now passes to?’ There were lots of dumb-struck people, who hemmed and hawed before coming out with ‘Portugal’ or a straight ‘no idea’. One or two correctly named Holland, but the overall impression given was of people who didn’t really know and didn’t really care one way or the other.

Thus the Government and the mainstream media avoid the substantive issues. It all amounts to propaganda of course, because people are concerned about the direction of the EU. Wherever they are held, high profile EU meetings are now met with protests such as those organised in Dublin by the Another Europe is Possible alliance and anarchist groups on May Day this year.

The European election results have also shown a depth of anti-EU feeling that has prompted politicians to speak of the need to ‘sell’ the EU to voters. Thus outgoing president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, said that the low turnout and the gains made by anti-EU parties in some countries highlighted the need for mainstream national politicians to explain their views on Europe more clearly:

"I believe, as a pro-European, that there is a message from the results and the message is to our political leaders across the EU, that if they believe in the Union, they have a special responsibility to give leadership and to go out and sell what they believe in.” (‘Anti-EU vote “a warning” for states – Cox’, Irish Times, 15 June 2004)

In other words, it’s a marketing problem. Voters must be convinced of the wisdom of what’s already been decided. There will be no room for discussion or debate. It’s a matter of convincing the voters to ratify it:

“…the concluding compromises made last month preserved the document's basic integrity. This will make it easier to convince voters it should be ratified. That will require a political campaign to advocate and explain it here and throughout the EU over the next two years.” (A successful EU presidency, Irish Times editorial, 3 July 2004)

So what kind of ‘political campaign’ can we expect over the next two years? Let me make a prediction: the Government and the media will continue to avoid the debate on the substantive issues until close to the date of the referendum. Then it will effectively define the terms of the debate, warning us against turning our backs on an EU which has served us so well. Pro-establishment academics such as Brigid Laffan of UCD will appear on every TV and radio show from Questions and Answers to Prime Time to The Last Word to Five-Seven Live to Tonight with Vincent Browne… urging us to vote Yes.

Business groups will row in behind the Government, providing substantial funds for an aggressive advertising campaign. When we vote No the first time, we will be told, in patronising and paternalistic tones, that we didn’t really understand the complex issues involved. The question will then arise as to whether there should be another re-run, as we had with the Nice Treaty.

It’s not yet clear what form the ‘political campaign’ will take in the shorter term, but perhaps it has already begun with the lavish praise heaped on the Government over the past few weeks, and all the mutual back-slapping self-congratulation. As socialists, I think the best way to proceed is to educate ourselves and others on the implications of the new constitution. There are already a number of important sources, such as, for example, an article by DAPSE entitled ‘Europe at the Crossroads: Health and Education as Business Opportunity?’, which can be found at http://www.pana.ie/idn/301203.html You can listen back to the Saturday View programme of 3 July at http://www.rte.ie/radio1/saturdayview/ before Saturday 10 July.