The real scale of Irish reservations. The analysis of the Irish "no" to the Nice Treaty undertaken by Ms. Brigid Laffan, of Dublin University, for the association "Notre Europe", chaired by Jacques Delors (see our bulletin of 13 July, p.5) confirms two convictions I have already expressed in this section. The first is that Irish reservations refer to some essential elements for tomorrow's Europe, more so than to the EU's enlargement. The second is that the Irish Government had direct responsibility in the outcome of the referendum. Among the reasons for the "no", Ms. Laffan cites majority voting for enhanced cooperation, the re-weighting of votes in favour of the large Member States, loss of sovereignty and independence, Irish participation in the future European rapid reaction force and Brussels' reprimanding the Dublin Government for certain aspects of its economic policy. In other words, the rejection refers to Europe of defence, the possible future vanguard, the common or co-ordinated economic policy and certain directions of institutional reform. From this point of view, the idea that the "no" is a negligible hiccup, that could easily be corrected next year, seems to me increasingly preposterous.
Denigrating Europe can cost dearly. As for the Dublin Government, Ms. Laffan sees it divided into three parts: one in favour of European integration; the second opposed to spectacular institutional changes; the third, nationalist. The European Policy Centre (EPC) last month set out an impressive list of "at times sour and ill-informed" comments by Irish ministers against the EU. The reaction of the Finance Minister to the criticisms of one aspect of his economic policy is well-known. Another minister said that the Nice Treaty gave too much power to non-elected bureaucrats; a third, that Ireland had more in common with Boston than with Brussels. In practice, part of the government discouraged the partisans of the "yes" vote and encouraged those in favour of the "no". It is an illustration of the dangerous game consisting in rendering Europe responsible for all the ills, making of it a kind of lightning-rod against the fury of discontented citizens, then to be surprised at the little popular enthusiasm for European construction.