After the proposed EU Constitution was soundly defeated by the people of Europe in 2005, promoters repackaged it as the Lisbon Treaty. This extraordinary anti-democratic move was intended to secure passage without public referenda. The Irish Constitution however, provided requirements that led to a referendum on the renamed constitution anyway. Not surprisingly, the proposed constitution / treaty met defeat once again. (55% – 45%)
The propaganda campaign in Ireland followed the same pattern as the European campaign in 2005. The YES campaign lacked any reason for Europeans to accept the dictatorial power structure that the constitution / treaty would create. So they avoided discussion on the actual content of the treaty and instead claimed passage would create an idyllic Europe – up to and including improvements in the weather. Naturally, they misrepresented their opposition as well; describing them generally as a small fringe group with ulterior motives and possibly influenced by foreign powers. In addition, they claimed rejection would throw Europe into crisis. (Three hours and counting; the sky over Europe hasn’t fallen yet.)
No sooner than the Irish NO was being reported, than pundits began describing the next effort at passage. Ireland is such a small country, says one Stockholm University professor, that it should not stand in the way. It would be different if Germany or France rejected the treaty. She expects Brussels to put pressure on politicians to change the Irish constitution to allow passage without a referendum, as has been done in other European states.
The comments characterize the typical disdain for truth and democracy that has been shown throughout the process. France did indeed reject the proposal in 2005. So did The Netherlands. Because passage requires acceptance by every state, these rejections were final. Other states had no reason to take continuation of the process seriously.
Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy has likened the EU process to that of the former Soviet Union. Rather than accept the result of the democratic process, they will continue to ask the question until they get the answer they want. What we have seen in Europe is even more extreme than his description. If the people reject it, the powers in Brussels will do everything they can to pass the measure without asking again.
