ANALYSIS:THE DECISION of the Irish people to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by such an overwhelming majority is a clear signal that most of the country's citizens want to live in an outward-looking country at the heart of the European project, rather than retreat back to an isolated position on the periphery, writes STEPHEN COLLINS
The endorsement of the treaty at the second attempt could, to adapt Seámus Mallon’s famous phrase, be regarded as Lisbon for slow learners, given that the legal guarantees merely specified what was not in the treaty and did nothing to change the actual text.
However, that misses the point that second time around the electorate really engaged with the issue, as the turnout showed. The political parties woke up to their responsibilities and, in tandem with a range of civic society groups, brought home to voters the importance of a Yes vote for the country on every level.
The way in which voters were able to put aside their feelings about the Government and vote on the merits of the issue in terms of our future relationship with the EU demonstrated that people can be persuaded to act in the national interest if the political class does its job properly, explains the issues and campaigns with conviction.
The reasons for the big change of heart from the first referendum last year are many, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that the economic crisis focused the minds of many voters on the importance of good relations with our EU neighbours in order to restore the country’s prosperity.
The emphasis by all those campaigning for a Yes vote on the economy and jobs, rather than the intricate details of the Lisbon Treaty, was crucial in keeping the minds of voters on the big picture rather than having them distracted by the legal niceties of the treaty.
An allied issue was whether the people of Ireland wanted their country to be perceived as a vibrant member of the biggest trading bloc in the world or a disgruntled small nation standing in the way of progress at EU level.
An added dimension was whether Ireland wanted to ally itself with the most anti-EU elements in British politics and ultimately crawl back into a subservient relationship with our closest neighbour.
The involvement of UKIP with the No campaign came as manna from heaven for the Yes side, as it showed the kind of allies that Ireland would have if the treaty was rejected again.
The outcome of the referendum has cleared the way for normal politics to resume in Ireland and for the European Union as a whole to get down to real business, after so many years of tortuous negotiations about institutional reform.
On the narrow domestic political front, the Yes vote came as an enormous relief to Taoiseach Brian Cowen and his Government. His tenure in office was marred almost from the start by the defeat of Lisbon I. He had to attend his first European Council meeting in June last year and explain to his prime ministerial colleagues why Ireland had voted No to a treaty which had been agreed under its presidency.
Cowen’s confidence never seemed to recover from that disastrous start. A second defeat would almost inevitably have forced him out of office and possibly resulted in an immediate general election.
While the referendum victory is unlikely to result in any reversal of his party’s current political standing, it will at least buy him some time. It should also give him the confidence to do what needs to be done in the national interest on the issue of the public finances.
Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin has come out of the campaign with his reputation enhanced. He spoke with passion and authority throughout the campaign and handled himself effectively in media jousts with difficult opponents like Declan Ganley and Joe Higgins. In the longer term, that will boost his chances of succeeding Brian Cowen when the Fianna Fáil leadership becomes vacant.
The major Opposition parties can take an equal amount of encouragement from the referendum result. Fine Gael and Labour put the national interest first by campaigning for a Yes vote. This was particularly important given the collapse of the Fianna Fáil vote in the recent local and European elections. The Opposition parties had to persuade their voters to back Lisbon if it was to have any chance of being ratified.
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny toured the country canvassing for a Yes vote and addressing public meetings in nearly every constituency. That commitment to putting the national interest ahead of an understandable desire to finish off a wounded government by a half-hearted campaign shows that Kenny has the credentials to lead the country after the next election.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore also put the national interest first by campaigning hard for a Yes, particularly given the fact that so many working-class voters who should be his party’s natural support base were in the No camp.
The Yes campaign of a variety of civic society groups was of at least equal importance. Pat Cox played an important role and Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary put his money where his mouth was and, despite the misgivings of some on the Yes side about his flamboyant style, he clearly had an impact.
The No side probably missed the presence of Declan Ganley for most of the campaign although his return in the final two weeks didn’t make all that much difference.
Ganley’s cynical “tribute” to Brian Cowen on Saturday morning was typical of the way he behaved in both referendum campaigns but, second time around, the voters were less susceptible to his smoothly presented anti-European message.
The posters put up by Ganley’s Libertas organisation and the right-wing group Cóir were clever and eye-catching but, ultimately, the voters had more important things on their mind when they went to the polling stations.
Cóir spokesman Richard Greene has spoken about setting up a new political party to represent the No voters. That would be no bad thing and it would be a real test of how many support the organisation’s message.
Sinn Féin, the only political party on the No side, probably made a tactical blunder by not claiming ownership of the commissioner issue as an excuse to get off the No hook.
The party had made it a key part of its No campaign last year and could have claimed the decision to retain a commissioner as a tangible victory and taken a different stance second time around.
Instead the party campaigned for a No, as it has done in every European referendum since 1972. That is unlikely to have done anything to enhance the party’s long-term prospects, following a series of disappointing election results.
The victory of the No side last year did inestimable damage both to Ireland’s reputation and its interests. The scale of the victory by the Yes side has already done a lot to restore both. Politics at EU and domestic level can now move on to other issues.
Stephen Collins is Political Editor