Irish vote too close to call as poll date looms

Date: 03/10/02

By David Cronin

THE timing could hardly have been worse for Bertie Ahern.

Three weeks before Ireland holds its second referendum on the Nice Treaty, the taoiseach (prime minister) has had to deal with a report from a tribunal, which named his former foreign minister Ray Burke as corrupt.

The report triggered the resignation of Patrick (PJ) Mara, a veteran strategist with leading government party Fianna Fáil, as director of the main pro-treaty campaign. Mara, the report stated, had failed to cooperate with the tribunal by refusing to give it details of an offshore bank account.

As a result, the ex-government press secretary stated he was quitting to ensure nothing related to him could be used to damage the chance of the referendum being carried.

Many pundits feel, however, the damage has already been done. The erosion of trust in the populist Fianna Fáil which the report seems to be causing can only spell bad news for the 'Yes to Nice' campaign.

The likelihood is that a large number of people could vote 'No' as an act of retribution against a tarnished government.

The bookmakers suggest the referendum's outcome is too close to call. Paddy Power is offering 4-6 odds for a 'Yes' victory on 19 October, compared with 11-10 for a 'No' win. Little wonder then that the treaty's supporters are extremely jittery.

And a poll conducted a few days before the tribunal findings were made public, similarly indicated that Nice 2 is heading for serious trouble.

It found 37 of voters plan to vote Yes; 25 No; 32 remain undecided; with 7 not voting.

The margin of support is even slimmer than in the final stages of the campaign ahead of the first referendum in 2001.

A survey then gave 45 to the 'Yes' side, 28 to 'No', with 27 in the 'don't know' camp. Yet in the poll that really mattered, the treaty was rejected by 54 of those who voted.

The abysmal turnout last June - less than 35 - has been cited as one of the factors why the 'No' side emerged victorious.

Even though all the large political parties, trade unions, the farming lobby, employer groups and the Catholic bishops had advocated 'Yes', their campaign was lacklustre. By contrast the odd alliance of Greens, far-left, romantic nationalist and anti-abortion activists on the 'No' side actually campaigned with passion.

Moreover, there was a wide-spread feeling among those who opted to vote 'No' that they were poorly informed about the exact ramifications of a complex treaty cobbled together by bleary-eyed EU leaders during all-night horse-trading sessions at the December 2000 Nice summit.

Most people didn't know exactly what had been agreed but knew there had been a power battle between the big and small states. And the feeling was that small states like Ireland had lost out to France and Germany.

Ahern and his cohorts have appeared determined to avoid making the same mistake twice. The charismatic Dubliner has told his party's representatives to clear their diaries and work exclusively on encouraging a 'Yes' vote on the 19th.

A national forum on Europe has been established to address the widespread perception there was a lack of debate about Nice 1.

It is staging public meetings at which an equal number of campaigners from the pro- and anti-treaty sides answer citizen's queries.

Yet there is a danger that the remainder of the campaign will descend into one big slanging match.

Prominent figures on each side have accused rivals of dishonesty and subterfuge in recent days.

In Brussels for this week's Council meeting, Foreign Minister Brian Cowen claimed that the 'No' camp is lying when it says enlargement can proceed without Nice. Cowen, who has taken over as chief of the pro-Nice campaign since Mara's resignation, said: 'This claim that the Amsterdam protocol will let five countries into the EU without the changes set out in the Nice treaty has been blown out of the water. A 'No' vote will delay enlargement and in political and legal terms it is not clear how you would proceed in the absence of the treaty.'

'No' advocates Sinn Féin - often described as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army - see it differently.

'To suggest that the rejection of the Nice Treaty would represent a withdrawal from full engagement with Europe is disgraceful and inaccurate,' said Seán Crowe, a Sinn Féin MP.

'We have seen the government's campaign reduced to doomsday scenarios and bully-boy tactics.'

The fear that Ireland is being gradually sucked into a military alliance like NATO is proving to be a major issue- just as it was first time around. According to the 'No' side, Nice puts the finishing touches to arrangements needed to get the EU's 60,000-strong rapid reaction force up and running. The Irish army has officers stationed in Brussels, cooperating in the development of the Union's military structures, which are due to use NATO assets in some operations.

In a bid to allay concerns that Nice could sound the death-knell for Irish neutrality, EU leaders issued a declaration at the Seville summit stating that this would not be the case.

But the 'Nos' have exploited the fact that this communiqué has no legal weight.

More fundamentally, many voters - even some who voted 'Yes' the first time - are asking why the government wants them to vote twice on the same issue.

As Eurosceptic Anthony Coughlan, a retired lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, remarked: 'The taoiseach has acted undemocratically in seeking to overthrow a perfectly valid referendum result just because he did not like it.'

There's a strong chance Bertie Ahern won't like the second result, either.

Preview of the second Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, 19 October 2002.