Lessons from Lisbon

So, Ireland said "No". I'll leave it to others to fire reasons why this is. Certainly yesterday's papers claimed everything from the Irish anger at their government, to not understanding what it really meant to a fairly straightforward rejection. Every group on the "no" side (and there were many, many groups on the no side) are claiming it to be their victory. But this is nonsense really. If the pundits and analysts really know why the Irish people voted "No", they could have told us this was going to happen weeks ago. But right up to the day, it came down to the wire.
There are, of course, lessons to be learned from the "No" vote. And perhaps, some changes need to take place as well.
For one thing, I'm sick of the papers and radios being full of commentators telling us why the result came about. They patently don't know. In future, every betting slip, err, ballot paper should include a short multiple choice survey to define the reasons for someone's vote. An important inclusion in this survey would be the option "People died for my freedom". This would go some way to shutting up the mindless clamour that comes in the days following any election or referendum. Alternatively, the Referendum Commission could do something similar. They phoned someone I know to ask whether they had clearly and usefully articulated what the referendum meant. Why not phone people to ask how they came about their decision. The results could have uses as wide ranging as shoving down some commentators throats and up other less reasonable passages.
High-minded posturing aside, there are actual lessons to be learned. For one thing, let's look at the "debate."

So, having dealt thoroughly with the "debate" surrounding the referendum, let's take a look at the media coverage. Unfortunately, the Lisbon treaty is a prize example of politics as entertainment. Explaining the treaty became a matter of advertising its benefits or drawbacks - not looking at the actual issues at hand.
It started with a fairly heavy onslaught from the "No" side, which was for too long unchallenged by the "Yes" side. When the "Yes" folk did say something, it seemed unconnected from what the "Nos" had thrown down. So, in round one, the "Nos" won.
It's been pointed out to me that the "No" side misquoted (at best), or perhaps even lied (at worst) about a number of articles in the treaty. I'm not going to get into that argument, but one important point is that it wasn't until halfway through last week that I heard someone (Enda Kenny) actually addressing the untruths of the "No" side. The "Yes" folk were too busy telling us the benefits to point out where the other side were duping us. In the narrative of mass media this means the Yes side were not addressing the issues. Issues laid down by the "No" side.
This media discussion could go on (and maybe will in paper and on radio), but really it needn't. Half the problem is that the debate was tailored for media delivery. I don't blame the media - most 'serious' (read broadsheet/talk programmes on radio/TV news programmes) took the whole thing quite seriously, and tried - as honestly as they could - to outline what the treaty meant.
The tailors here were political spin doctors or PR folk or whoever. At one point, it seemed more like there was a general election than a decision process going on. I got literature through my door telling me the benefits of my local TD, and mentioning that he was all for Lisbon. "Who wouldn't be?" was the general timbre of the literature. There are two problems with this - 1, this isn't explaining why Lisbon is important, why I should vote and why, when voting I should vote "Yes". 2 - Irish people are quite cynical about politicians and politics. How this has escaped their notice, I have no idea, but they really are. So the "Vote Yes because I think it's a good idea and you can always trust me" isn't a great plea.
The "No" people had absurdity on their side. We will lose our power in Europe, we will lose our commissioner! being a real hum dinger. Because they made it sound like Ireland was the only country this was going to happen to. Then, to expand, they pointed out how "This is what the bureaucrats in Brussels want to do with your money!" Despite the fact that the EU have been quite straight on the point that if every country has a commissioner, the commission would become bloated, over expensive and overly-bureaucratic. The solution was to develop a commission that reflected actual need of the EU working, which meant that countries would have to take it in turn to have a commissioner. They would lose their commissioner for five of every fifteen years. France, Germany and Ireland. Oh, and twenty four other countries...
We can broker a better deal! Really? 496 million people are going to say "To hell with it! Go on, give the Paddies what they want. Do I want anything changed? No, I'm fine. Let's have whiskey Friday and read from Beckett in French and Joyce in Italian and send money to the lads. They've spent the last lot we sent over."
But the greatest, truly, has to be People died for your freedom. Don't throw it away! By Christ that one gave me indigestion. I have no idea how this even connected with the argument.
But it was a stroke of genius. That Coir did a brilliant job - because they connected with every demographic in some way - from the Tabloid-type murder of your ancestors to a more high minded analysis of how the EU was determined that Irish women should be forced into abortion clinics set up by foreign nationals all over the country. They weren't too far away from claiming prison camps run by savage, under-resourced bureaucrats!
Then, there was If you don't know, vote no! This, a friend of mine railed against quite rightly. It lacks logic: the world will stop because you don't know? It makes no sense. First, as Chris pointed out - you should find out. If you really want to make a statement about not knowing, spoil your vote. Voting "No" for this reason makes as much sense as alhakamga ner bushchchca nargle flop.
Running politics through the media has finally hit rock bottom (and ironically, it was the politicians 'what dunnit'). The use of advertising and marketing techniques has fostered and encouraged a demented, ignorant 'brand-oriented' perception of political issues. This is one thing in a general election. However, it's much more serious when you're talking about the fundament of the country. One lesson from Lisbon (for Ireland, and perhaps further abroad) is to return some intelligence and depth to political debate. Make it actual political debate, and not some type of ad. If it hurts peoples' brains - then tough. A small headache must easily be worth the blood that's already on your hands, what with all those people dying for your freedom.
Onto the aftermath. The part where the teacher sits down and checks your sums. Within ten minutes of getting up on Saturday, I had ditched listening to Irish radio for BBC Radio 4. What I heard there was food for thought. A number of people commented on how the Irish people had "Spoken for the people of Europe". I thought this a valuable comment - whether it's right or wrong. Let's not forget that only a few years ago the French and the Dutch did reject the Constitution (which was relabelled the Lisbon treaty). This is not a reason to vote no (as some did claim!), but with the Irish rejection, perhaps it is time for Europe to ask the people. Now, this is not to say that we have to go back to the drawing board and wait another half decade for a deal to be brokered between 27 countries that they can all agree to. But it does mean saying "Look, this is how we can get along. Are you OK with that?" If people say no, then perhaps Europe (as in the EU) does need to reconsider its mission.
The problem faced here is one faced by all human endeavor now. People are tiered in every facet of human life: from the completely ignorant to the professional/expert (these are not moral or social labels - they are related only the the amount of information, knowledge and understanding that people have related to different subjects). It runs in science, medicine, politics, law, technology, etc. etc. The closer you are to the 'ignorant' end of the tier, the more likely you are to believe that the professional/expert end is up to something. Something suspicious.
In the age of the Internet and mass media, knowledge and information hasn't been shared, it has been shattered, creating pockets of interest and the ability to know intimately some specific detail of some larger framework without necessarily knowing very much about the larger framework, or any other details of it. This has repercussions for all human knowledge, and is probably the most important lesson from Lisbon - it's a flashpoint where this new human condition has shown itself, but it is something that needs to be faced and tackled before we start living in completely different intellectual spaces.