Are you confident for a ‘no’ vote?

The only poll that I will have confidence in is the one on 12 June. To judge from my experience and from what people in the street have told me, most of them will vote ‘no’ or say that they don’t know. I will be happy if the ‘no’ vote wins because it would indicate that the Irish people have been informed about the treaty. What continues to surprise me is that there is still such a wide margin for the ‘yes’ vote. This treaty is made for the political establishment, it is good for it. So I think that people outside of this political establishment who despite everything want to vote ‘yes’ do not know the content of this text. If they really knew the content, we would have 90% ‘no’ and 10% ‘yes’, the latter representing the ruling establishment. Regarding the farmers’ associations, they have recommended voting ‘yes’, but the farmers are going to vote ‘no’ because they’re not fooled. The associations have received a sort of dodgy promise from the government, which said that it would use its veto in the World Trade Organisation in case of an agreement which is unacceptable for Ireland. Now, I spoke to [EU Trade Commissioner] Peter Mandelson two weeks ago and he said that technically a veto was possible but that no one would dare to resort to it since they have been working on this agreement for years. For Peter Mandelson, a veto would be worse than a ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty.

What are you arguments for voting ‘no’?

For me, the main argument is that this treaty is a new step (actually, a giant step) toward the problem that we already currently have with the lack of democracy in the European structures. The process began with the Laeken declaration: the EU understood that we lacked democracy and tried to change the situation to give power back to the nations and move back toward the citizens. But this vision was hijacked by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and the European Constitution was created. What we have now is less power for the nations and less democracy.

But the Lisbon Treaty increases the powers of the European Parliament, which represents the citizens…

You have to keep in mind that when you elect your national MPs, they propose legislation. On the other hand, when you elect MEPs, they do not propose any legislation. It is the Commission that has the sole right of initiative. MEPs can try to change a proposal, to amend it, or even reject it, but despite all their efforts only 20% of their amendments are taken up. It is a serious democratic problem because all the proposals are written by the Commission, and the people working there are not elected but appointed. Even the commissioners will no longer be appointed by governments in the future, they can only make suggestions. Therefore, it does not make sense to talk about this treaty bringing more democracy. It’s a mistake.

What do you think of the arguments put forward by the ‘no’ camp regarding abortion and neutrality?

I think that the real argument here is that we know what the EU Court of Justice will do in the future. The only thing that we can say is that although the Irish constitution has the final word on these sensitive questions, the Court in Luxembourg has gained a new set of laws on which it will be able to decide. So that doesn’t mean that we’re going to authorise abortion or euthanasia or that we’re going to go to war, but no one can say that that won’t happen. I can’t either, but I do know that there’s a risk. So I am asking my fellow citizens: do you want our fate to be decided by our Constitutional Court or by the European Court in Luxembourg?

Don’t you think that Ireland would be isolated in the case of a ‘no’ vote?

Were France and the Netherlands isolated in 2005? No, they then re-voted on the same text, which was supposed to be a different text. If Ireland votes ‘no’, it will not leave the Union because it is very pro-European. But it would be stupid to punish us for voting ‘no’ because if they want this treaty (or another) to be ratified again, they will have to come to us. And if they treat us like dogs, it would be another ‘no’. So the only thing that they will have to do in case of a rejection is to be angry but smile. And to give us what we need, ie for some a better agreement in trade negotiations, for others better guarantees for workers’ rights, etc. I want all of these things, but above all I want democracy. We have to return to the original Laeken mission, which was to reduce the democratic deficit. There were two reports: one was the Constitution, the other the ‘minority report’ established by five members of the Convention. This last document is a good basis for a new treaty. The Lisbon Treaty has already been rejected in France and the Netherlands. It is time to abandon it and listen to the citizens.