Though Cowards Flinch

Well might Brian Cowen echo the age-old question of Sigmund Freud, what do women want? The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty pulled a large number of women voters into the “No” camp. Indeed Cowen and his government, as they scratch their heads at the imponderable, impertinent ignorance of the Irish electorate in rejecting modernisation, freedom, democracy and mama’s apple pie, might well ask what Ireland wants.

The rhetoric leading up to the vote on the Treaty of Lisbon was apocalyptic. A vote against the treaty was a vote against progress; anything less than full-throated support for the treaty was calling doom upon the Irish economy. Even French Foreign Minister and ‘respected humanitarian’ Bernard Kouchner weighed into the debate by declaring that a “No” vote would hurt Europe but that it would hurt Ireland most of all.

All this served to expose was that truthfully the Irish electorate weren’t being given a choice at all. They were simply being called on to ratify the rational, progressive dream laid out by their knowledgeable leaders.

Thankfully the Irish gave that short shrift and did what the rest of the EU nations had not had the courage to do: voted down the Treaty. Now accusations are flying around as to why. I’ve seen talk about the intervention of arch-Catholic xenophobia, I’ve seen talk about anti-immigration platforms, and the government itself has been accusing the Irish electorate of simply not knowing what the EU Reform Treaty was even about.

To prove this contention, some women were quoted who voted against the treaty because they believed Irish boys might have to fight in a war, though, maintained the government, Irish sovereignty and neutrality were to be wholly protected by the treaty.

Ultimately the largest ascription seems to be to fear, in some form or another; fear of change, fear of immigrants, fear of job losses. Whatever one can fear, it is suggested by the media commentators that this is the root of the “No” vote. I disagree. Though in the No vote camp, the most progressive socialists find themselves in bed with the arch-reactionaries, racists and all types of unsavoury political character, nonetheless we share something with these people that spells hope for Europe and it isn’t fear.

What we share is a rejection of the post-political vacuum where the competing modernist ideologies used to stand. We can’t share their ideology but we can share a rejection of the conception of modern politics as choosing between apolitical administrators.

This is essentially what the EU offers: it is no accident that in Ireland, all the major media outlets and all the mainstream parties were advocating a “Yes” vote. The confederation of Irish industry was utterly disparaging in its description of those people who would vote against the treaty. All these parties and their allies in business and the media are merely alternative administrators of exactly the same system.

A “No” vote while cast for vastly varying reasons was united in its rejection of the underlying preconceptions of the European Union. As in France and Denmark over previous ‘reform,’ the issues of the Right are as much about the contradictions of capitalism as the Left desire to reject neo-liberalism and retain the welfare state. What is immigration but a way for bosses to undercut wages of native workers? That’s something our very own House of Lords hesitantly flagged up in a recent report.

This rejection can be considered populist in the sense that it involved the creation of a pseudo-enemy, whether Polish emigrés or Brussels bureaucracy. The populist tendency is to explain these things away as excesses within a wider successful system. Our response to that should be to point out that these excesses are not only uncorrectable but provide the context for the normal operation of the EU and its capitalism, which is running very hard to keep up with its Chinese and American competitors.

Cultural critic Slavoj Zizek writes in a recent article, “If the emerging new world order is the only nonnegotiable frame for all of us, then Europe is lost, so the only solution for Europe is to take the risk and break this spell of our destiny.” What he means is that we, the labouring people of Europe, need to stand up and be counted and refuse to unquestioningly accept the imposed truth-value of modernisation etc. France and Denmark each struck first, now it has been Ireland’s turn.

We must use this opportunity to force a debate without the parameters that are so clearly determined for us each time a member-nation faces a referendum. We must not merely accept the overriding, overwhelming allegorical equivalence of “Yes” and “No” with progress vs. reaction. We must challenge all preconceptions. The Irish have given us the chance to do that and I for one am grateful. If the EU leaders at their summit next week decide to press on as though nothing has happened, we will all know that the debate I suggest is precisely what they want to avoid.