Respecting Ireland's decision. We have to respect the decision of the people of Ireland. The result of the referendum could not have been clearer: indifference (60% of the population opted not to bother voting) and "no" to the strengthening of European construction won a sizeable majority. Barely one out of every five Irish people took position in favour of the integrated and Community Europe. This is an observation and not a judgement: each population has the right to choose on the basis of its own preferences and aspirations. The confident and friendly relations between the two groups of countries can continue perfectly well or even be built upon, as the cases of Norway and Sweden demonstrate.
At the same time, however, the relaunch of European integration between the peoples and countries which want it must happen immediately. Those who choose something different have no right, and indeed no opportunity, to prevent this. Nobody is being begged to join the enterprise; indeed, there are already almost too many applicants. Some federalists and ancients of European construction have even breathed a sigh of relief: they will now, finally, be able to fight for the Europe they have always dreamed of.
Two options for the relaunch. New negotiations on the finer details of the reinforcement of the EU are unthinkable. Everything possible has been done, everybody has sacrificed some element of their ambition and preferences. There is no need to start a third time, nor to give up on the result of years and years of efforts and compromises overnight. On the eve of the Irish referendum, I recommend a swift and radical reaction: the countries in favour would take up the Treaty of Lisbon as it stands (in order to avoid any more bargaining, which has gone on long enough already) and conclude it amongst themselves. This would involve keeping in place the current treaties for relations with the other countries.
And then another, more radical, option emerged: such countries as wish to reinforce integration would all leave the current EU and create a new Community. The effect of this would be that the current Treaties would remain in force exclusively between the countries which are not part of the new entity; even the free movement of goods and participation in the institutions would have to be negotiated with the reconstituted Community. Don't even think of mentioning budgetary contributions for agriculture and the political structures: these, naturally, would all be reserved for the countries of the new treaty. I have no idea of the details of this option or its feasibility; much more work would certainly be necessary. I will say only that it was lawyers who suggested it, which must surely imply that it is legally possible.
Rapid action. The important thing is for reactions to be swift and for the EU not to give in to discouragement and stasis. Swift, brave and inventive initiatives are called for. Of course, analyses are also vital. I believe that it would not be enough to see the Irish result as proof of the increasingly deep gulf between politicians and public opinion. I have the impression that the gulf is between those which have extended and understood the issues and to those which have not. In Ireland, all of the political parties with the exception of one took position in favour of the "yes" vote; these parties were voted for by the population. Nor must we forget that the constitutional draft was not the result of confidential negotiations between the governments and European institutions, but was the work of a Convention, in which the national parliaments were very much represented and which held constant dialogue with civil society. Analyses and commentaries are very useful, as long as neither neglect nor delay the need for action.
It is everybody's right to belong to the Europe he or she prefers. If what has happened has allowed us to draw a clear distinction between those who want an integrated Europe, with strong institutions and based on common policies and solidarity, and those who would rather have inter-governmental cooperation and who are unconvinced of the existence of a common European interest, then it will not have been in vain. It could be that one day we will see that the separation was inevitable and in fact highly beneficial, by allowing us to build a real Community between such countries and peoples as believe in it.
(F.R./transl. fl)