Let's wait calmly for the results from Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish have received a high level of information about the stakes at play and the debate has been much more far-reaching than in the past. Voters know that they will have to choose between: a) strengthened and more efficient European integration; b) ties that are less close, lower ambitions and weakened common policies. It's up to them to decide. Here are a few remarks.
1. The authorities and the pro-European forces in Ireland are right to maintain the state of alert and underline the fact that the result is no foregone conclusion in the least. “Yes” vote supporters should avoid falling asleep and through indolence or overconfidence give in to the temptation of laziness.
2. They have to be clear to everyone that there will be no third chance. Any further renegotiation is ruled out. In the event of the country's rejection, the “Verhofstadt formula” will become unavoidable: acceptance of a two-speed Europe. Countries that are determined to move forward should meet up very soon and take ownership of the Lisbon Treaty as it is, without renegotiations (apart from indispensable technical or legal adaptations). The current treaty will remain valid, without institutional innovations, while abandoning significant amounts of common funding for agriculture and structural policy, as called for by the United Kingdom for a long time. We are not creating an integrated Europe with those who don't want it, but those who reject it cannot ban others from innovating and maintaining solidarity.
3. The two categories of “no” vote supporters. There are those who have logical reasons for voting no and there are those who are mistaken. Those rejecting an integrated Europe of solidarity, who oppose the pooling of national competencies, always strive to destroy the common agricultural policy and who want to reduce the European budget, have their reasons. To be brief, these are the people who accept inter-governmental cooperation but who reject integration and the Community method. For these people, the Lisbon Treaty (and even the treaties that already exist) goes too far and we can understand why they reject it.
Those who are voting against it, however, because they don't like one or other of the aspects of the Lisbon Treaty or who want to amend a given treaty provision or find such and such an article in it insufficient, are wrong. In a Europe consisting of 27 countries and which is still expanding no-one will be completely pleased with everything.
The two attitudes. Faced with specific divergences or certain given details, there is a noble attitude and a petty one. The noble attitude can be personified by Jacques Delors, who has already declared that with the draft constitution, the result was not the Europe of which he had dreamed and fought for his whole life. Nonetheless, he affirmed that he would vote for it because the new treaty meant progress for democratisation, for the way the institutions operate and for Union efficiency.
The petty attitude is that of those who vote against because they are unable to find a particular provision in the treaty, such as with the “Tobin Tax”, as if application measures could figure in a treaty when they are in fact part of the application and therefore depend on election results (national and European). When positions differ, why should an almost constitutional treaty (even if it has lost its shape along the way, as well as its symbols) endorse, a priori, one or other of these attitudes? Added to the pettiness and lack of logic is often a big dose of bad faith. For example, with “the services of general interest”, the Lisbon Treaty introduces the principle of public funding to ensure that a “universal service” is maintained, which paves the way for a whole range of developments. Moreover, the Parliament is also involved in the management of agricultural policy.
Illogical. These considerations go beyond the Irish case. Ireland, however, has a number of cases that are difficult to understand. For example, the tendency of agricultural organisations to call for a “no” vote because of the EU's position in the Doha world trade round negotiations. The EU in fact robustly opposes measures that would bring an end to farming in Europe (only the United Kingdom and Sweden are clearly in the other camp) and it is a specific issue question that will be resolved in a few weeks' time, before the new treaty comes into force! According to some indications, this absurd position has been abandoned: the two main agricultural organisations in the country (IFA and ICMSA) have recommended that their members vote yes (EUROPE 9675) in defence of European agriculture.
This is symbolic and encouraging for Thursday's vote. I believe that there will be a fairly clear victory for the “yes” campaign. If the opposite, however, transpires, the EU should move forward without the countries that choose a different path.
(F.R./transl. rh)