The definitive ratification of the Lisbon Treaty adds another advantage to those generally mentioned: it offers the Eurosceptics the opportunity to express themselves in a Community context - and they are certainly not denying themselves. This treaty also introduces into the Community panoply the option for any member state to leave the EU. Paragraph 1 in Article 50 is brief and to the point: “Any member state can decide, in compliance with its constitutional rules, to withdraw from the Union”.
Freedom of choice. These developments are, in my opinion, largely positive. The EU is not a fortress; those that participate in it want to do so, share the objectives and responsibilities for the way it functions, and fulfil the required conditions. If a country does not want accession, they are not obliged to request it or can refuse to ratify the accession negotiated (Norway). The possibility of withdrawing from the Union has become a formal right. Moreover, with further strengthened cooperation, it will be easier to remain in the Union without taking part in some of its projects - a facility that is already used by the United Kingdom, Denmark (artificially) and Sweden by not participating in the eurozone. Why is all this so important? Because it helps us put a stop to the myth of Europe being imposed and tying member states together in a kind of chain. Certain blogs in which citizens are expressing themselves are, from this point of view, outrageous. There really are people who believe, or pretend to believe, in the existence of a sort of diktat, through which European integration would become obligatory, and if a country votes “no” it will be made to vote again to rectify its verdict - as if in reality, the possibility of a second vote had not been requested by the country in question itself, as if the incentive to vote again had its origins in some vague or mysterious place known as “Brussels”, as if accession had not been mentioned by those that joined the Union, despite the obstacles and years of waiting, and as if accession still did not represent the goal of so many countries knocking on Europe's door.
In reality, each country is free to choose, with the additional possibility of staying in the EU or joining it without taking part in all the different projects. The door is open to those who want to leave and people have to know this.
Freedom of speech for the Eurosceptics. I believe that it is also positive that the Eurosceptics can express themselves freely in the EU institutions. I do not share the opinion of those who regret the Eurosceptics being given the facility to organise and express themselves at the European Parliament. If they are excluded, no-one will be able respond to them and they will come up with all sorts of stories; and they will take advantage of this as they did in Ireland when they got Irish citizens to believe that the Lisbon Treaty would impose divorce and abortion, end their political and military neutrality and get rid of their right to have an Irish European commissioner. When, finally, there was an opportunity to reply to these lies, we saw the result.
Everyone has the right to oppose the Lisbon Treaty or even the presence of their country in the Union. The debate is now taking place on these issues at the European Parliament. The debate is also more open in member states (mainly thanks to technological progress) and pro-European arguments can be developed and heard in all the different bodies, not only in the official publications of the Community institutions, suspected a priori of being partisan and turning a deaf ear in the debates, as well as the divergences, surrounding the preparation of decisions. Everybody can, therefore, speak out and citizens can make their choice.
European integration for those who so wish it. The opponents of the Lisbon Treaty are speaking out and that's all very well and good. Vaclav Klaus, after signing the ratification voted for by his country's parliament, confirmed his personal opposition by declaring: “With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Czech Republic ceases to be a sovereign state”. Three days previously, this column invited him to propose leaving the EU, which would have allowed citizens to say what they themselves wanted (I don't have any doubts about what the result would have been). On Wednesday, the British Open Europe organisation asked the Conservative Party in the UK to say whether, if it won the next elections, it would call for the return of certain competencies and whether it was committed to a referendum on any other transfer of powers from London to Brussels. Timothy Kirkhope, the head of the European Parliament's Conservative group, announced a policy that does not aim for the UK's withdrawal from the EU (he admitted that the latter can play a useful role in climate change, the fight against poverty in the world, etc) but rather, a return of certain European competencies to the national authorities.
We have to remain calm when encountering such initiatives and others that go in the same direction. Member states that are determined to advance should not hesitate and if needs be, consider developing what was formerly known as the “hard-core”, as already borne out by the eurozone. Each country must be free to decide as it sees fit. (F.R./transl.rh)