Well the campaign officially kicked off yesterday - four and a half weeks out from the critical vote. Minister Phil Hogan signed the referendum order and thus ended the shadow boxing. Straight out of the traps and TV3, an independent Irish broadcaster, was hosting the first live debate on the referendum tonight. It has just finished as I write. So what's the verdict?
First of all the line-ups. In the 'Yes' corner, we had Agriculture Minister Simon Coveney TD (FG) and Fianna Fail leader Michael Martin TD, leader of the parliamentary opposition. In the 'No' corner, Joe Higgins TD, leader of the Socialist Party and Mary Lou McDonald TD, Vice-President of Sinn Fein. The always excellent Vincent Browne (and you have admit that whether you personally like or loathe the man) was our facilitator. So, how did the protagonists fare? Does the voter understand any more about what this referendum is actually about as a result of tonight's debate? Is the voters choice any more informed? Who has done well personally?
Well insofar as that basic barometer of what these debates are supposed to be about goes- or at least what I thought these debates were supposed to be about - I have to say I am disappointed. The uninformed or uneducated among us who may have approached this open minded with to a view to finding out what all this was really about will feel a bit let down. In the early exchanges, in fairness, there was more openness as the actual mechanics under the bonnet were more the focus and some of the reasons behind the treaty were explained. Now a lot of the reasons why we are having this referendum may be as a result of knee jerk (and half assed) EU responses to the sovereign debt crisis. It may have been hurriedly put together (10 months give or take, which believe is me is fast acting for the EU) and give the impression as to have been put together on the back of an envelope by European, sorry German Chancellor Merkel, and her allies but nonetheless there is a very important debate that should be had as to the direction this treaty may take Ireland. Not purely in terms of financial issues, but also in terms of how the EU enacts and binds its members by it laws, regulations and treaties.(This last point - the EU democratic deficit - is a particular hobby horse of mine, that I have referred to on other posts, here and elsewhere. And no, it did not come up, not even once tonight.) But despite a promising start, our protagonists reverted to type and we lost sight of some of the real issues.
Once the personality clashes took over and the soundbites came into their own, the reasons got left behind in a mist and instead you would be led to believe that all of this is quite simple really. Mary Lou and Joe seemed to be telling us to vote 'No' and not let it worry us. Sure, the EU, or IMF or ECB or even the ESM we voted no to, would still give us money. If we needed it (We do). In two years (We will). But we mightn't. Confused? All sides talked alot about GDP. It was as Mary Lou, seasoned financial commentator that she is, presciently observed, an 'alphabet soup'. Don't kids eat that? They talked a lot about how the previous Fianna Fail administration had got us into this problem - Mary Lou pointed out that despite belt tightening and harsh budgets, the countries budget deficit had widened. They hammered the present Government's cutback measures and subservience to bondholders despite election promises to the contrary.
Joe Higgins was careful to refer to the treaty by it's real name -the Austerity treaty- at all times. He will win a few votes with that tactic too, mind you. He would raise money through a wealth tax. Nothing new there. Mary Lou would raid (no pun intended) the pension reserve fund. That basically, was the nuts and bolts of the 'vote no' alternative to bailouts and loans, which we would nver be able to repay anyway. Not that anyone mentioned that fact.
The 'Yes' responses and counters were fairly lightweight. Michael Martin was to me, surprisingly lightweight. Cynicism aside, I did expect a more robust stance from him, that while advocating and putting the argument for the treaty forward he would have a sprinkling of innovative reasoning that while supporting the Government, would set FF apart in some way - something which they badly, badly need before the party dies on their feet. And I know it flies in the face of what I said earlier, but he was perhaps too willing to have a cup of tea and a chat style of argument, with Mary and Joe rather than really getting into what he was there for. That is the fact, that like day and night, black and white, there is no middle ground between yes and no. There is no maybe on the ballot paper Michael.
Leave it to Simon though to get the real nasty stuff going. Firstly he reeled of an ABC (back to the alphabet soup? - Ed) of multinationals who were in favour of the treaty.Goodness knows why. The first thing the EU will do when they get full control of the purse strings is abolish that low corporate tax rate. Then the big guns - Vote no, and you'll be in for it in the next budget, he threatened - came out. Which was a repeat of what Finance Minister Michael Noonan had scared with people with earlier in the day. Which is what Fine Gael policy is on this referendum. Scare the voters. Mary Lou questioned whether she could believe her ears. It was music to mine. The campaigns only begun and the dirty stuff is flying.
So what was the verdict? Well I don't think anyone coming to this new or afresh is any better informed than when the debate begun. This is not a good thing but one that with plenty of time left one that can be forgiven. As for the respective 'Yes' and 'No' sides, I would hate to sit on the fence. They were equal however, in terms of how they failed, to properly articulate the real issues firstly, and secondly in that what they give us was old and rehashed and not terribly new or interesting(-ingly put). For me, the No' side may have shaded it. I thought Martin was poor - indeed I am wondering why he chose to take place in this particular debate. I can see the reason why he may have seen some advantage in getting his face and name up there early but it didn't pan out that way for him. Coveney was just poor. His threats are contemptible and the Irish people will not, I hope be scared, frightened or fooled by them. Joe Higgins was OK, he is honest and his arguments though well recited to the point of almost being meaningless through their monotony, are sincerely held. Mary Lou impressed me(slightly). She has been regarded in the past as somewhat of a weak link or liabilty in the SF armoury (again, no pun intended :)) when it comes to debates and not being fully briefed or knowing (and going) off topic. In recent months, maybe even the last year, she has improved. She can nearly hold her own. She just managed it tonight.
I think overall not very many of the undecided voters (18% at the latest poll; http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0428/poll-shows-slight-narrowing-in-treaty-support.html) would have made up their minds tonight. If they did, it is thanks mainly to a poor 'Yes' showing, a moderate 'No' effort, and a foot in mouth effort by Simple Simon.
