The Amsterdam Treaty has been ratified, and solidly so, by the electorate. Ireland has once again shown it favours the fruits and the process of European integration as reflected in this latest inter-governmental treaty. On the assumption that it passes in the Danish referendum, the treaty seems likely to be fully ratified this year and to come into operation in 1999. Whether in employment policy, justice and home affairs or equality matters, to take just three examples, many benefits can be legitimately expected to flow from its implementation.
But clearly the arguments for European integration are not as compelling as before. Political leaders have much to learn from the result about the quantity and quality of information and argument produced during the campaign as they face into an intense and complex period in which monetary union is put in place, the Agenda 2000 package is negotiated and EU enlargement agreed. The turnout was disappointingly low in this referendum, as in that on the Belfast Agreement. Nevertheless the number of spoiled votes, at 33,228, indicates extensive dissatisfaction over the treaty's incomprehensibility. Even more so, the substantial bloc of those who opted to vote No because they did not understand the treaty must stand as a rebuke to this exercise of democracy by referendum.
This is not to argue that treaties should not be subject to popular endorsement, however complicated they may be. Given the fact that sovereignty-pooling involves a transfer of competences normally giving European law rights to override national courts, it is correct to give the people the final say on what is in principle an irrevocable decision. Would, though, that there was a better way of alerting them to what is involved. The McKenna judgement by the Supreme Court was directed against an undeniable injustice, the ability of governments to commandeer public funds to advocate partisan positions in referendums put before the people. But the subsequent Government interpretation of the decision, as expressed in the legislation that set up the Referendum Commission and provided its mandate, has been unduly restrictive, both in limiting its activities to reproducing arguments put to it by third parties and in ruling out the funding of direct debate as is done in Denmark. On top of that parties seemed to believe they were constrained from arguing their case vigorously. While the quantity of information available for voters may have been satisfactory as a result, its quality left much to be desired.
It would be regrettable if, in reappraising the McKenna judgement, the Government is tempted to reverse the important principle it established. It would be better by far to explore new means of bringing democratic legitimacy to the EU by encouraging debate, such as the ideas floated last week by Mr Jacques Delors to give political groups in the European Parliament the right to nominate candidates for Commission president.