I recently attended a meeting of the People’s Movement, an organization of broadly leftist activists who are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.  Here are some observations on campaign themes used by the People’s Movement at at Mullingar rally.

 

Much of the discussion on economic policy was preoccupied with the alleged free market bias in the European Union.  It was noted that some of the most extensive powers of the Union are concerned with free markets, particularly with preventing countries from regulating corporations differently in different parts of the Union.  The support given to the Lisbon treaty by IBEC was also noted.  American corporations, like Microsoft, appear to be sympathetic to a more powerful EU.

 

However the big corporations can easily afford some of-the regulatory and taxation burdens discussed in Brussels.  Medium in small sized enterprises, the backbone of our economic expansion, are the ones that will suffer most from the regulations emanating from  the European Union.  It should not be forgotten the Ireland’s economic success has been based, in large measure, on free markets policies.  The ethos of the European Union is essentially social democratic.  It is true that the European People’s Party bloc, the Christian Democrats, now dominate many EU institutions.  Nonetheless, these center-right parties are afraid to challenge the core of the social democratic regime created by years of more left-wing dominance in the Union.  Britain and Ireland, on the other hand, have had a more Atlanticist and more business-friendly outlook.

 

There was considerable confusion in the debate about military security.  One speaker from the floor even suggested that George Bush was planning an invasion of Venezuela.  While Bush is certainly hostile to the attempts of Hugo Chavez to turn himself into a Castro-style dictator, the U.S. is primarily interested in economic and political pressure on Venezuela.  Military intervention would be very difficult and entirely counterproductive, unless Venezuela does something dramatic or aggressive in its own backyard.  Unfortunately, extreme statements like this one add to the notion that the “no” campaign is out of bounds in its criticisms of the foreign policy implications of the Treaty.

 

The real threat to Irish neutrality does not come from NATO or links with NATO.  There is no pressure for Ireland to join NATO.  Indeed, Ireland, Finland and other neutral countries can have mutually beneficial but essentially ad hoc relationships with NATO, through NATO’s outreach programs like the Partnership for Peace.  NATO has done good work in defending Europe during the Cold War.  The NATO and the United States would be willing and able to take on any threat to Europe coming foam Middle East weapons proliferation or missile development.  Likewise, Nato is well-suited to dealing with with Russian expansionism, should that ever re-emerge.  At the other end of the scale, there are a number of regional threats based on the risk old inter-ethnic or territorial conflict in southeastern Europe.  These include hotspots around Macedonia, Moldova and relations between Serbia and its neighbors.  For the most part, these situations may require passive peacekeeping and diplomacy rather than war fighting.  For this, Europe has a second security infrastructure in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  So, Europe already has two powerful institutions capable of handling the range of security threats to its backyard in the years ahead.  It does not need a new military and political bureaucracy to run a European defense policy.

 

It is true of the Lisbon Treaty granted Ireland some exemptions from military alignment.  However, there is a slippery slope to defense cooperation., starting with foreign policy coordination.  While the People’s Movement often exaggerates the risk of direct alliances, they are correct to point to a tendency toward defense policy making by another name, by the back door.

 

There was also some discussion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, although it too focused on labor union concerns. Many of the rights and responsibilities referred to in the Charter could be included in the Irish Constitution  -or, if they are rejected by the Irish people, should not be imposed on the state at all.  There is nothing in the realities of European interdependence or economic integration that requires us to sign up to a series of rights and responsibilities in areas outside of economic policy in this way.  But I will say more about the Charter in the subsequent posting.

 

The People’s Movement raises very important issues about the democratic deficit and about how Irish politicians are treating the public in a condescending way in their handling of the debate so far.  The Government’s efforts at informing the public, even through the White Paper, are entirely inadequate.  It’s not surprising that the Westmeath Examiner, while still holding back on its own position on the Treaty, was critical of the information dimension of the “yes” campaign..

 

Finally, in my own contributions, I noted that many people will be put off by those who are on the “no” platform.  The fact that Jean-Marie Le Pen is supporting the “no” campaign or that the main political parties on the “no” side are not mainstream may drive many voters away from this side of the argument.  However both the politicians and issues to which they now object will be long gone, even as Lisbon remains in force.  It is this longer-term perspective that needs to be taken into account as voters go to the polls this summer.

 

There will be more on the Mullingar People’s Movement rally in later posts.