Philadelphia Trumpet, July 2001
When only 33 percent of Irish voters turned out June 8 to make their voices heard in
the referendum on the Nice Treaty, it was clear that attempts of Irish and EU leaders to
promote the merits of further EU integration and enlargement had fallen on complacent
ears.
However, when 54 percent of those who did vote decided against ratifying the
treaty (which was drawn up in Nice last December with the intention of making EU expansion
into Central and Eastern Europe easier), the message was clear. Even with low voter
turnout, this was an example of democracy in action. The Irish are the only ones in the EU
whose constitution required that the treaty be put to referendum. (This begs the
questionhow many other countries, given the opportunity, would have joined the Irish
in a no vote?)
The reaction to the Irish vote among EU leaders was one of unmitigated shock and
horror. Since the Nice Treaty cannot become law without the ratification of all 15 EU
member states, the Irish have consequently become the problem child of the EU, in need of
correction. EU foreign ministers issued a statement following the referendum saying in
effect that they would ignore the outcome of the Irish vote!
The EU foreign ministers wrote in a joint statement, "While respecting the will of
the Irish people, the foreign ministers expressed their regrets at the outcome of the
Irish referendum on the Nice treaty. They rule out any re-opening of the text signed at
Nice. The process of ratification will be continued on the basis of this text and in
accordance with the planned timetable. The other 14 states have said they are ready to
help the Irish government in all possible ways to find a way out by taking into account
the worries which the results of the referendum reflect, without re-opening the text of
the Nice treaty."
"By this statement, European leaders formally gave notice that they have
abolished democracy. It is a long-established fundamental principle of democracies
that governments are responsible to the people who elected them and to their
representatives" (European Foundation Intelligence Digest, June 1-13).
Clearly, the voice of the people, exercising their democratic right to be
heard, is not one that EU leaders are interested in hearing. Rather, the results of the
referendum serve only as proof that the mind of the people must be forcibly changed
through further "re-education." Gunter Verheugen, the EU enlargement
commissioner, insisted that "The outcome of a referendum in one country cannot block
the EUs most important project" (www.eubusiness .com, June 8). Even
Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern stated, "I want to make it absolutely clear that,
in my view, the no vote should not be interpreted as a vote against
enlargement" (Agence France Presse, June 15).
The Irish referendum reflects as much on the political leadership of the EU as on the
Irish people. Perhaps the populace of the EU do not care much for the institutions that
are being formed to rule them. But do they care about the abolition of their democracies?