Three Monkeys Online - the free current affairs & arts magazine

The Lisbon Treaty vote is coming soon to Ireland, again. To re-cap: France and Holland rejected a planned European constitution so it was repackaged as a more innoccuous sounding treaty, which the Irish then rejected. Three strikes and you’re not out at all at all: the Lisbon treaty is to be voted on again by the Irish in a few days. Back in 2006, after one of the defeats, I mentioned an article in Gazeta Wyborcza by a Judit Kiss in which she blamed – essentially – public relations for the outcome. This time around no chances are being taken: in the Irish debate public relations are already being blamed. Here is an excerpt from a letter by Donncha O’Connell to the Irish Times of September 29^th:

Madam, – The contrast between the punchy slogans of Gerry Adams and the compelling logic of Noel Dorr (both in Opinion, September 28th) speaks volumes. In rhetorical terms, it is simply easier to undermine the case for the Lisbon Treaty than to defend it beyond reasonable doubt.

Isn’t it just so unfair! Mr O’Connell is only one of many, many commentators bemoaning how easy it is to agitate for a no vote and how awful it is that the yes campaigners have to spend so much time and effort refuting their opponents’ arguments. He is right, of course. The supporters of the constitution should not have to waste time persuading people to vote for it.

The EU and the US have come to a new agreement on the “sharing” of passenger information on transatlantic flights (or the west-bound ones anyway). The negotiations were carried on under some duress - err, with a degree of urgency - because the previous agreement on spying on (among other things) the meal preferences of Europeans had to lapse on October 1st due to the small problem of it being illegal. However, the Americans were insisting, levying fines on airlines who did not break European law and supply the information to various US agencies.

So hats off to our steely European negotiators. They stuck to their Euroguns and heroically won major concessions from the world’s number one superpower: under the terms of the new agreement the US will not take the information; it will be given it.

On the back page of today’s Dziennik is a short piece about the EU’s “You control climate change” campaign. The slogan is translated as “Kontroluj zmiany klimatu,” which means “Monitor changes in the climate.”

This weekend’s skittishly unpredictable Gazeta Wyborcza has an intriguing article on the always fascinating subject of the European Union by Judit Kiss, a Hungarian economist. The article is built around a tortuous analogy between the EU referendum and the Merchant of Venice as yet another technocrat tries to perusade us that they read literature too. Who knows? Perhaps if you prick them they even bleed?

Kiss has the answer to the question that has been keeping us all awake this last year or more, namely why France and Holland rejected the European Union referendum: the “political elites” did not ask the citizens who were allegedly to benefit from the constitution their opinions while they were drawing up the treaty.*

It was not the content but the way in which the constitution arose that caused its rejection

If the “political elites” had consulted the public the constitution would either have had a different content or the same content. If the former, Kiss’s point is unmade: it is the content that determines whether the constitution is acceptable to the majority of people. If the latter, the consultation would have been meaningless. Kiss’s article is a slightly more subtle version of the universal cry of the establishment loser: “it was public relations what won it.” One must never admit that the sheep made up their own minds about which way to vote, basing their decision on the substantive issues of the proposition. Unless of course they vote the way you want them: then they have made a mature and informed decision.

In answer to the question of why so many countries voted yes Kiss would - I am quite sure - fearlessly say it was because of the lack of consultation with the public. But then she wouldn’t get her articles published in Gazeta Wyborcza.

* Actually, the public was asked its opinion. I suspect most people did not volunteer one out of the conviction that nobody in the “political elite” would pay it a blind bit of notice. The sheep are awfully cynical these days.