Why is the ‘Yes’ campaign in the face of opposition to the Lisbon Treaty resorting to scare mongering ? - Bertie in the closing days of his premiership described how our rejection of the referendum would be a disaster, and yesterday Manuel Barosso, chief of the European Commission commented:

‘If there was a ‘No’ in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU. We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way’

The ‘Yes’ campaign have solid, tangible counter arguments to the sensationalist arguments being thrown around by the ‘No’ campaign. At a recent public meeting on the treaty, Pronsias De Rossa and Gay Mitchell, eloquently and articulately reasoned through the issues at hand, distinguishing fully where legislative and directive boundaries ended and begun. The admittedly underrepresented ‘No’ side in the shape of Mary Lou McDonnell, had a number of standard statements on rotation, points which under scrutiny could not be developed, her fears stemming from concerns based on wording before harking back to the standard soap box issues. Both took time during their statements to reflect on the greater question of Ireland’s role in Europe, Gay Mitchell believed in a great God given achievement, a project we should be proud to be part of and almost scolded us for considering voting no, directing us to the pharmaceutical wealth and financial focal points based in Cork and Dublin respectively and any other number of benefits. Similarly, there was an air of guilt tripping as tales of emails received from despondent Eastern Europeans following our rejection of Nice meant we should not even consider denying them the same benefits we have enjoyed.

The confusion stemming from these arguments has meant that by and large the treaty debate has been amongst the political parties and action groups, and for those who are going to be informed by a bare minimum of exposure to information, there has not even been a clear presentation of the issues. Threats to our neutrality, wages, social policy and tax policy are as ever being bandied about and at this point it borders on irresponsibility to labour them so much and reflects ineffectiveness on the part of the ‘Yes’ campaign that they cannot offer conclusive counter arguments.

There is an important debate on our role in Europe, an idea raised by Mary Lou of where we draw a line in the sand - essentially what is the objective of the project?, that should be raised by a brave political leader, so that we could tackle specific issues such as the Danes later thsi year - resolving specific issues they have to date opted out on. My concern for now, is that no one can tell me what will happen if we do say no - we have been warned of there being no Plan B, which is potentially more scare mongering - so essentially its a case of being dammed if we do, but more dammed if we don’t. I fear the unknown more than the fear I know.