The Cedar Lounge Revolution

To begin with, an apology.  I am conscious that, when writing previously about the Lisbon Treaty campaign, I have focused on marginal opposition groups like We Are Change and Libertas, or have discussed on relatively minor issues like the establishment of the Referendum Commission.  I have not, I realise, outlined my own position (currently a probable – albeit unenthusiastic – ‘Yes’ voter) nor have I engaged with the more substantial arguments against the Treaty which I have at least some respect for, even if I don’t accept them. 

I will do my best to produce a more serious piece addressing these issues before the referendum in June.  In the meantime, however, I hope readers will the indulge me if I examine some of the latest developments in the Libertas camp, prompted by an unsolicited arrival in my letterbox over the weekend.

I’m not sure what it is about Libertas that makes it so intriguing as an organisation.  Certainly it’s not a shadowy or mysterious group of anonymous individuals like WAC (and, to flag a personal interest which will surprise few, I know and like Dave Cochrane personally).  Neither is it an organisation whose political views in relation to the EU have changed over the years, the change itself being interesting (as in the case of, say, the Green Party).  Perhaps it is the strange mixture of the success which has allowed the group to – to a large extent – dominate the ‘No’ campaign in the mainstream media and the utter incoherence of its message, at times leading it to make what could most generously be described as ’schoolboy errors’ when it comes to matters of fact and accuracy (one hopes these are errors, as the alternative would be a deliberate distortion of the truth).

One such embarassing mistake was The Case of the Purloined E-Mail.  Libertas were handed a wonderful story on a plate – a rather embarrassing leak from the British Foreign Office about a briefing given by an Irish official on the government’s plans for the referendum campaign.  Let’s leave aside the fact that, contra Libertas, WAC and others, there’s really nothing in the e-mail about the contents of the Treaty itself.  Libertas’ press release on the subject demonstrates that they have trouble grasping the basic facts of the case.  They confuse (deliberately or otherwise) the suggestion that most people won’t read the Treaty with a hope on the part of the government that this will be the case, they fail to understand who actually sent the e-mail in question (it wasn’t the Irish official), rather central to their demand that this person resign.  In fact, they can’t even get the names right, even though they’re right there in the story they link to.

Secondly, while it’s not really a new development, cactus flower over on Machine Nation links to a very interesting article written by Declan Ganley in 2003 for the Foreign Policy Research Institute.  In it, Ganley argues:

One of the most pressing areas is that of free trade, in spite of the progress made with the establishment of the WTO (one of its visionary architects being Ireland’s own Peter Sutherland). The current European structures still impose ridiculous and amoral barriers to free trade. We do this, ultimately at enormous cost to ourselves. Disincentivizing those engaged in farming across Europe by operating a highly inefficient structure that does not provide for any future prospects of a better standard of living or higher incomes. By mindlessly spending over half of the EU’s EUR89bn budget on a common agricultural policy, when a fraction of that capital invested more wisely into those same communities would provide for greater incomes, higher living standards and zero dependence on farm subsidies. Think of the improvements in Europe’s social, economic and security infrastructure with an extra €40bn available and managed efficiently and accountably.

Now, Ganley’s position wouldn’t come as much of a surprise and wouldn’t be that unusual among large sections of the business community in Ireland, including those advocating a ‘Yes’ vote.  However, it does seem rather underhanded to, on the one hand, argue for greater liberalisation of international trade, a removal of protectionism and the dismantling of the CAP (including the abolition of farm subsidies) while, at the same time, issuing posters in rural areas across Ireland advising people not to vote for ‘Mandelson’s Europe’, a clear attempt to exploit the fears for the agricultural sector that any upcoming WTO deal, spearheaded by Mandelson, would disadvantage Irish farmers.  Ganley’s vision actually goes much further than anything which could conceivably be agreed by the Commission at the WTO.  It’s understandable, although not very honest, that Libertas would implicitly criticise ‘Mandelson’s Europe’ without ever explaining what ‘Ganley’s Europe’ might look like.

Most exciting of all, however, is the much heralded Libertas leaflet, which arrived at my house over the weekend, just in time for the Libertas national tour (which it also advertises).  Indeed, of all the quirks and oddities of the Libertas campaign strategy, this tour must surely rank as one of the strangest.  Not for what will be presented at each venue (that’s not revealed in the leaflet, perhaps adding to the mystery), but for the scheduling. 

The tour consists of 14 appearances over five days, starting this morning at the Lough Lannagh House in Castlebar, the meeting kicking off at 7.30am.  Now, I would never suggest that the good burghers of Castlebar aren’t interested in the Lisbon Treaty.  However, I would perhaps question whether the people there are quite so engaged with the issue that they would present themselves at a small hotel at daybreak to partake of the wisdom of Declan Ganley (assuming, of course, that Ganley’s actually present).  This doesn’t apply to Castlebar, of course; I’d say the same about Roscommon, Athlone, Drogheda.  Even, perhaps, Ballsbridge (Friday’s morning meeting takes place in the Schoolhouse Hotel on Northumberland Road).  A cynical man might suspect that the holding of these meetings is motivated less by a desire to discuss the Lisbon Treaty with the public in an informed and dispassionate way, and more by the desire to have said that the meetings have been held.  In fact, the duration of the meetings (varying between 90 minutes at most and 45 minutes for some – barely enough time to get one’s trousers off) would tend to support the latter contention.  However, perhaps some of our more dedicated readers braved the early morning in Castlebar and attended today’s meeting.  If so, perhaps they might let us know how it went.

As to the substance of the leaflet itself, it’s essentially a collection of points about why, in Libertas’ view, the Lisbon Treaty is a bad thing – six reasons why Fianna Fáil is wrong, and five reasons to vote ‘No’.  There’s something of a greatest hits element to the leaflet.  Many of the old favourites of ‘No’ campaigns over the years are tossed into the mix, with a few new innovations to add flavour.  All in all it’s a rather ‘kitchen sink’ approach on the part of Libertas, with little or no consistent message or point of view (other than that the Treaty is very much A BAD THING).

Of the eleven points Libertas make, each contains at best a distortion of the facts and, in some cases, an out and out lie.  They play the abortion card, suggesting that the ‘European Courts’ may overturn Ireland’s position on abortion (they can’t; the Maastricht Protocol is still in place, which explicitly excludes this possibility).  They deny the (admittedly fairly minor) additional role national parliaments are granted in the scrutiny of EU legislation stating, bizarrely, that ‘Our National Parliament is controlled by the Government who agree to the decisions in the first place, so that’s not relevant, and not true’.  This exposes not just Libertas’ ignorance of the decision-making process at EU level but their complete misunderstanding of the basis of parliamentary democracy in this country.  They roll out the old favourite that ‘Lisbon can be amended without a further referendum’, ignoring the point that’s been made over and over again that the Libson Treaty changes absolutely nothing in terms of the constitutional requirement to hold referenda on issues related to the EU (i.e. if a change to the Treaties required a referendum before Lisbon, it would still require a referendum in a post-Lisbon environment).  They complain that ‘Lisbon creates an unelected President of Europe’, forgetting (or ignoring the fact) that no such position actually exists, that the permanent President of the European Council (the actual job being created) won’t be ‘lecturing us on how to run our country’ and that Ireland will actually have a vote in who gets the position, unlike the current situation where the only people who have a say are the voters in whichever country happens to hold the Presidency at any given time.

Possibly most disingenously, Libertas states that:

France has said that it is committed to “harmonising” taxes in the EU – this would mean that we would have to pay the same rates of tax as them.  Low taxes have been great for Ireland.  Article 93 of the Treaty would allow the European Court to rule that Ireland’s low tax rates are an unfair “distortion of competition”.

Now, let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that this is simply untrue, and that the Lisbon Treaty changes precisely nothing in relation to the role of the EU in determining levels of taxation at national level (it has none).  Libertas argues that the emphasis on competition in the Treaty opens the door to harmonised taxes.  However, if one looks at their The Lisbon Treaty – A Business View section of their website, one finds the following:

The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition” which has featured in the preamble to every treaty since the founding Treaty of Rome in 1957 has been relegated to a protocol in the Lisbon Treaty.  This was at the behest of French President Nicolas Sarkozy who has stated his support for the anti-competitive protectionism of so-called “national champions”.  As a small open economy, Ireland relies on having free and undistorted competition to give our domestic entrepreneurs and companies scope and scale for growth.  Ryanair, CRH, AIB, Airtricity and a host of other successful Irish companies are the testament to this and are counter-examples to what the Treaty of Lisbon proposes to do.

Is there really no limit to the hypocrisy of Libertas?  Vote No – the EU will use the competition requirement to change our taxes!  Vote No – The Libson Treaty takes away the competition requirement!  Whatever the organisation started off as – a vaguely pro-business group criticising the Treaty from the right – it’s descended into a mish-mash of confusion, name-calling and the worst kind of lowest common denominator politics.  They don’t seem to have much respect for the facts, or the truth, and will trot out any argument, regardless of its merit, if they think it will scare people into opposing the Treaty.  Any old thing seems to do, which re-raises the key question about Libertas – what’s the real motivation behind it?  It’s hard to imagine that they genuinely believe everything they put out (if that was even possible) which suggests that there’s some other agenda at work.  I still tend towards the view that it’s just a self-indulgent ego-massaging vehicle for Declan Ganley, esconced in his Galway compound like a latter-day Euroskeptic Colonel Kurtz, with Ulick McEvaddy dancing around shrieking “I’m a little man, he’s a great man!”.

Now, if Libertas was just a fringe organisation like We Are Change, they could be written off with a minor shrug.  However, given that Ganley is so feted by the mainstream media  (certainly compared to figures like Kieran Allen or Anthony Coughlan, both of whom could claim the same mandate to speak on behalf of ‘No’ voters as Ganley) and is being presented as the voice of the ‘No’ campaign, it’s important that both ‘Yes’ and – if I may – the left-wing ‘No’ campaigns become much more assertive in challenging the evasions and inconsistencies of the Libertas message.