Martin fails to appreciate risk in treaty referendum

THERE ARE too few occasions nowadays where politicians make the time and the effort to set out a detailed and comprehensive exposition of their analysis and views on a political issue.

Micheál Martin’s speech to the Institute of International and European Affairs on Thursday last was one such rare occasion. In a lengthy address to an audience of diplomats, European policy specialists and media representatives, Martin outlined in detail the current Fianna Fáil position on the EU generally and on the ratification of the fiscal compact in particular.

The speech was timely because there has been some confusion of late about Fianna Fáil’s stance on European issues, with some suggesting the party was taking a Eurosceptic turn. At the outset of his address Martin denounced such characterisations as incorrect and ill-informed, and said he welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight.

In a passage which one suspects was aimed more for internal party consumption, he said those who are and used to be Fianna Fáil voters have supported all European treaties at a higher level than any other party.

Against those who might argue that Fianna Fáil should now be less positive on Europe, Martin emphasised “our current and potential supporters are unequivocally part of the pro-European mainstream”. Fianna Fáil, he said, was still, and would continue to be, unambiguously “pro-EU”.

If anything the thrust of Martin’s speech was even more pro-Europe than those of his predecessors. He spoke of how Fianna Fáil policy and that of Ireland generally has, apart from the occasional need to protect national interests in key areas, been to support incremental change towards integration.

Now, in the current crisis, Martin argued that instead of merely supporting this incrementalist approach to integration, Ireland should be proactively proposing what he called “a significant expansion of key federal powers”.

In the part of his speech dealing with the fiscal compact, Martin was clearly positive towards the new treaty. He accepted that fiscal rules of the type set out in the compact would provide a clear, long-term framework for restoring confidence in the euro.

He also argued that, even with the better terms which we all believe will come for elements of the bank-related debt, significant fiscal consolidation will still be required.

Having said this, Martin – in a paragraph initially unclear to most journalists present – said that more information was needed on the likely impact of the fiscal compact, and that Fianna Fáil had sought clarifications from the Taoiseach on a range of points.

He then went on to say that “in principle we are positive to the treaty and will support it subject to receiving a proper response to our reasonable queries about its impact”.

He did not go so far in the script as to say that if there is a referendum Fianna Fáil would advocate a Yes vote. At the end of the event, in what were at times robust exchanges with the media, Martin was questioned about the use of the phrase “subject to” which some suggested meant Fianna Fáil was still leaving its options open on whether to support a Yes vote in any referendum.

In seeking to clarify this Martin spoke of how he could not envisage a scenario where Fianna Fáil would not support a Yes vote but was also anxious to assert Fianna Fáils right to question the Government on treaty detail.

On Thursday, Martin also repeated his controversial suggestion that even if there is not a legal requirement to hold a constitutional referendum on the fiscal compact, the Government should hold a referendum anyway.

His arguments for so doing are both complex and subtle – perhaps too subtle.

He pointed out how there has been a dangerous collapse in public sentiment towards the EU in the last 18 months or so. He attributed this drop to the disorganised way in which EU leaders initially reacted to the crisis.

He warned that the way in which the compact has been negotiated, and the fact that it might be ratified without a referendum, may do so much further damage to public sentiment towards the EU in Ireland that it will make it impossible to pass a treaty ever again.

Like many commentators Martin believes that there is a need for an even more dramatic overhaul of the legal and institutional infrastructure of both the EU and euro.

There will be another treaty soon, and there will be no legal doubt about requiring a referendum for it.

Shuffling this treaty through parliament without a referendum would, he suggests, undermine the possibility of getting that next treaty ratified whereas putting it to a referendum would provide an opportunity to engage directly with the people on the need for greater European integration.

In arguing for a consultative referendum Martin leaves himself open to the charge of seeking to have it both ways in maintaining his party’s pro-EU positioning but joining with the popular clamour for a referendum. He also attracts scepticism since Fianna Fáil in government never put any major national issue to the people unless it constitutionally had to and, if in government now, would be unlikely to put this issue to them either.

More substantially, Martin’s stance can be criticised for a failure to appreciate that referendums often involve the voters giving answers to questions other than the one they are asked. Domestic rather than European issues often dominate such referendum campaigns. This risk would be even greater given the traumatised condition of the Irish electorate at present and uncertainty about how the fiscal compact would actually affect our budgetary process in years to come.

In reality any such referendum is unlikely to improve Irish sentiment towards Europe.