The Tyranny of the Weak

In his victory address, Declan Ganley boldly asserted that the no vote registered by the Irish electorate on the Lisbon Treaty was sending a message to Brussels, not just from Ireland, but from 'tens of millions of EU citizens'. This notion, that Ireland somehow has a mandate to speak for other European countries, is unique and unwarranted. Mr Ganley claims that 'Euro elites' do not reperesent the people of Europe, but wherein does he derive the power to speak on their behalf? It is the province of citizens of a particular state and their governments to decide on how they wish to register their voice in European elections. It is arrogant of the Irish people to assume we can impose a solution on them, and claim to do so on their behalf. In fact, almost every non-Irish European I know is now quite worried about the future of the EU.

The no campaign's skewed and worrisome vision of democracy is not only typified by this, but by the fact that they feel a country of 4 million people holding back twenty-six countries of 491 million people is somehow democratic. This is not democracy, it is the 'tryanny of the weak', whereby small states can force their will on others because those bigger states adhere to punctilious ideas of consensus.

Mr Ganley further claimed that the Taoiseach now had 'a mandate to go back to Brussels and renegotiate a better deal for Ireland.' This is the most curious of all those pearls bandied about by the no groups. Notwithstanding the fact that Lisbon was a good deal for Ireland and Europe, that even further institutionalised the system whereby small states like Ireland and Malta (402,000 people) had pound for pound better representation than Germany (82 million) or Poland (38 million), it is difficult to deduce what that mandate is considering those who voted no were not asked to append a sentence outlining their reasoning. I can assure Mr Ganley, as a student of diplomacy and negotiation, that the real world does not conduct itself in this way. Re-negotiation will involve Ireland having to produce a national position, which will be the product of tireless negotiation between all the departments of government. This will then have to receive democratic legitimisation. Every other European country, with their own preferences, will go through this process, before the 27 nations meet with 27 different ideas. Added to that will be the EU itself, a functioning organism with its own ideas. Reconciliation of these divergent positions will be inherently tedious, if not impossible, and if Ireland thinks it can get a 'better deal' why shouldn't every other state? Moreover, Irish repudiation of the treaty has exposed the danger of giving states power beyond what they deserve, and I wouldn't be surprised if the larger actors resist this trend in the future: why should Germany's fate hang in the balance because of Ireland? One should not be taken aback if the movement towards a 'core Europe' slowly materialises- at Ireland's expense. Of course, we would decry their selfishness, yet our own selfishness is somehow commendable.

When the US constitution was created it required ratification by only nine of the thirteen states, and the Lisbon Treaty for all the tiresome talk of a 'superstate' is hardly anything as momentous as that great document. If the EU really was democratic, it would operate under the force of popular will, not minority dictate. By that logic EU reform should proceed apace. If Ireland is unhappy with CAP or structural development funds, with the Euro or the right to work anywhere in Europe, with cross-border crime fighting initiatives, or with the certainty that our European neighbours will come to our defence if need be, and if Ireland does not wish to have a meaningful voice in world affairs, then why not sever the rest of our ties with Europe? Otherwise, let's take the responsibility befitting a mature state with the second highest per capita GDP in the EU and start contributing to Europe. That means stop detracting from it.

Yours etc,

Gary Quinn,