Keep on votin'

So the Irish have rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The debate has now shifted to what we need to do next - if, indeed, anything should be done at all.

The EU's reaction, and the resulting counter-reaction, have exposed yet another flaw in the idea of the referenda system as democratic perfection. Europe's bigwigs are considering a number of options - to carry on without Ireland or any other states that do not ratify the Treaty; to try to convince the Irish to change their minds in a later vote, possibly by changing the treaty to favour that country a little better; or to just write the whole thing off as dead in the water. Of the above, any choice other than the third would make a lot of Europhobes red in the face with righteous indignation. I am encountering the phrase "when will they realise that no means no?" on web forums, in the papers, on Newsnight. The suggestion is that a second vote, or a Lisbon Treaty that excludes Ireland, would now be undemocratic. This is an oversimplification which has passed into the territory of being simply wrong. When a member of the public expresses this opinion, it's understandable, as the reality is a little counter-intuitive. When it's used by a politician or the media, it's downright dishonest.

There are a number of obvious flaws to the 'no means no' argument, the most obvious being that it's a little shaky to declare a vote over a European issue that less than 1% of the European population is entitled to participate in as democratic. It is democratic for Ireland, not for Europe. But more to the point: while the right of the Irish public to a referendum over such matters is written into their constitution, there seems to be no framework for when or how often such referenda can be called. Eurosceptics are angry that, in theory in least, there is nothing to prevent the powers that be calling an election on Lisbon every few weeks until they get what they want, and such anger is understandable enough. But it's equally as ludicrous to suggest - as the "no means no" line seems to - that the vote on 13/06/08 must now stand for all time. The idea that it should in any way disallow Lisbon to be ratified with Ireland excluded is nothing less than insane.

Furthermore, it's apparent that a lot of the Irish voted against Lisbon not because they disagreed with it in principle, but because they didn't understand it. "If you don't know, vote no" has become a popular slogan, even if it is inherently contradictory: if you don't know about an issue, surely the logical solution is either to educate yourself beforehand or abstain, rather than screw up the figures for people who actually care about the outcome. It seems possible, even likely, that the Irish would be in favour of Lisbon were it properly explained to them, or perhaps with a few clarifications to ensure that Ireland's position on abortion, for example, could not be overruled by the EU.

A vote in which ignorance plays such a major contributing factor - disinformation seemed to be the word of the day for the No campaigners, with some people thinking that the Lisbon Treaty would ban families from having more than two children, and others believing that a Yes vote would be a vote to reinstate the death penalty - is not a victory for democracy, but rather puts democracy to shame. It is a rather good demonstration of the fact that the electorate cannot be expected to digest and understand a legal document that runs to over two hundred pages, and a further reason to argue as I have earlier ("Is This Democracy?", below) that a preferable system is for the people to periodically decide who they want to make such decisions rather than voting on every single decision separately.

If countries such as Ireland are going to have these votes enshrined in their constitution, some regulatory factors are probably a good idea. Perhaps there could be an annual vote, on a set day of each year, when any proposed changes to the constitution can be approved or discarded. But without set rules - and without the ridiculous idea that a one-off vote can decide on an issue for all eternity, even after the voters are all dead - then "no" does not mean "no", but only "not yet".