Age, Lisbon and Sustainability
In his latest monthly article on sustainability issues, Professor Frank J. Convery, Chairperson of Comhar Sustainable Development Council, reflects on the result of the recent Lisbon Treaty referendum, and wonders if age was a deciding factor in how people cast their vote.
In the recent Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, where a majority voted against, it is notable the extent to which older people supported it, and the rest did not. Born in 1944, I am firmly in the older person group, and I too voted ‘yes’. What explains our affirmative? I think it is because we know from often traumatic experience how important it is to always look out, rather than in; to be a fully-fledged, voting member of the decision-making club; to trust in political and policy expertise, and to benefit from the Asian Age we are entering.
The following are the experiences that shaped this Irish citizen’s view of the world and of the European Union.
In the 1950s, I went to National School in Ferrybank, on the Kilkenny side of Waterford city. I was – at best – in the middle academic rank of my class, but only I and a couple of others whose parents had sufficient money, or who went for the priesthood, went on to second level; it was means rather than mind that mattered. As for the rest – the true best and brightest – they typically went to England, un-armed with either financial assets or education, and struggled always to find a foothold beyond the confines of the construction site.
That hundreds of thousands of lives were economically blighted in this manner was a consequence of looking in; of imposing tariffs and discouraging inward investment, at a time when the rest of the world – devastated by war – was looking out. High product quality and Ireland became an oxymoron, as mediocrity flourished in the absence of trade and competition. And sustained mediocrity corrodes confidence and self-belief.
I went to Baden Württemberg to work as a forestry student in 1961, and couldn’t believe that a region levelled to the ground by war – which less than 15 years previously had a starving and demoralised population – could be so rich, exciting, energetic and innovative; where everyone who wanted a job could have one; where exports, imports and ideas flowed freely. Our generation learned from bitter experience the futility and stupidity of ‘ourselves alone’ as an economic idea. A sustainable economy means taking on the world; encouraging trade and investment; taking risks; giving entrepreneurship status and recognition, but doing so in ways that are socially responsible.
But we also learned the vulnerabilities attendant on trade; the need for rules that apply equally to the small as to the large, the weak and the strong. Big countries always suit themselves first, with little advertence to impacts on their smaller neighbours, a reason why Canada and Mexico have a free trade agreement with the elephant to their south and north respectively. Our dependence on our own elephant – the UK – as the main trading party left us vulnerable to the vagaries of UK policies. The UK could and did proceed unilaterally without consultation, with no obligation to discuss and no recourse in the event of collateral damage. For many of us who observed the tragedies of protectionism, and then the often gratuitous damage inflicted by a big neighbour, the European Union was the ultimate safe harbour, where not only did rules apply to big and small, but we participated in making the rules, and they had the force of law.
But having a seat at the table is only the first step. Participating effectively in rule-making depends on the quality and persistence of your arguments, and the extent to which the others in the club are disposed to take you seriously.
The quality of Irish policy development and execution ranges from the truly woeful to the outstanding. One of the successes has been our efforts at European Union level; since we joined the Community in 1973, both our politicians and our civil servants have generally used their place at the table to very good effect on our behalf.
Eamon Dunphy, Gay Byrne and Shane Ross are seriously knowledgeable when they talk about football, the media, and business respectively, and I give a lot of weight to their opinions on these topics. If I knew what Declan Ganley’s business and other expertise was, and he spoke thereon, I would likewise pay close attention. And when Peter Sutherland, Brian Cowen, Ruairi Quinn and others speak on matters European, I give a lot of weight to their opinions, because they have huge expertise and experience and performed to good effect at the highest level; I know that they know what they are talking about. In fact, two of our former European Commissioners – Ray MacSharry and Peter Sutherland – can be ranked amongst the great performers at European level. The former helped reduce the conflict between farm support and trade by decoupling payments from output, and enabled payment to farmers for environmental services, while the latter led in making a reality of the Single European Market. MacSharry provided a framework for supporting the small-scale farmer and the rural environment, while Sutherland provided the essential pre-requisite for foreign direct investment to Ireland.
One of the puzzles in the Lisbon debate in Ireland was the extent to which this latter track record and experience was given no weight, or even negative weight, in the debates and decisions of younger voters. Some of the discussion reminded me of the rebellious young priest Damo in Father Ted; there was a touch of the ‘You’re not the boss of me, Ted’ (or ‘Brian’, ‘Peter’ or ‘Ruairi’) about the proceedings.
The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is still alive, accounting for over €50 billion (out of a total of €120 billion) of the Union’s annual budget. The commercial sustainability of our farming depends both on strategy and on the fine print of regulations. Sustaining our environment and our planet requires that we work closely with our European partners to achieve policies that are fair, economically efficient and environmentally effective, creating opportunities as well as costs. The new high-cost and low carbon energy world we are entering requires us to be innovative and to prioritise. Effectiveness in these arenas requires not only that we be at the European table, but that the quality and persistence of our contributions be of the highest standard, and that we be regarded by the others with respect, esteem and a minimum degree of empathy.
We are already in the Asian century, with China, India and the other Asian countries increasingly taking global, economic and political leadership. With even a modicum of mature leadership, the US will prosper in this new age, because they have the finest intellectual engines – their universities – in the world (see my recent commentary on ‘Boston and Sustainability’ on www.comharsdc.ie for further details). They also have the ability – honed over centuries – to culturally, socially and economically assimilate the best and the brightest, to the extent that in parts of the US (and Canadian) West coast today you can already imagine you are in Asia.
Europe struggles on both counts. And if we do not hang together, we will hang separately. We need a little more leadership and cohesion at European level to make sure that – for us – the Asian century is also the European and Irish century. And in the end, this is what I – and perhaps many of my fellow geezers – thought the Lisbon Treaty was about.