The EU has not been paralysed by the Irish vote. The European Council has done what was necessary to keep things moving. It said that the Lisbon Treaty is alive, that it will not be re-negotiated and that it is up to Ireland to work out how to be part of it. At the same time, it has proved that the delay in the treaty's coming into effect has not paralysed the Union. The EU will continue to take its projects forward on the basis on the current texts, as is logical, especially for the French Presidency which would have implemented its programme without the new treaty anyway. The aim, spoken of by some, of bringing the treaty into effect before the next June's European elections is probably unrealistic. Delay will be longer, and the negative repercussions of the Irish people's “No” vote will remain great. However, the twin track approach (validity of the treaty and willingness to act without waiting for it) has been accepted.
Listen to Mr Juncker. We will no doubt read and hear the usual complaints about the EU's ineffectiveness and the lack of will and vision of its leaders. I believe that, once again, it is Jean-Claude Juncker who was right when he said, in effect (in his speech at the Université libre de Bruxelles on Wednesday evening): We Europeans are not proud enough of what we have done. Throughout the world, the EU is seen as a haven of freedom and prosperity. Where would we be without it? Without the euro, the crises of the last few years would have destroyed our monetary systems. If the euro exchange rate had not been what it is, how high would prices be in Europe today? We are not perfect, far from it, but let us look at what is happening in the world before we make judgments.
It is true that Mr Juncker rejects the idea of moving on without Ireland: “I will never agree to building Europe without Ireland”, and he refuses to be drawn into a legal assessment of possible courses of action. First and foremost, it is up to Ireland “to look at possible ways”; then we'll see. This is an opinion shared by the Commission president, Mr Barroso. I do not believe that this confident stance is incompatible with the warnings and the call to begin thinking about a two-speed Europe. The summit's message seems clear: the EU is not giving up on the new treaty with all that it brings. No one wants to exclude Ireland, Ireland has to choose.
Angela Merkel's clearsightedness. Responsibility for opening the European Council debate on this issue (late on Thursday) was given to Angela Merkel, who had spoken about it the previous day in the Bundestag. From her speech in Berlin and what we know about the discussion among heads of state and government, her position can be summed up in four points: 1) the EU needs the new treaty, the Treaty of Nice is not enough; 2) there cannot be any pause for reflection, because there is nothing to re-negotiate; 3) it is for the Irish government, at the next European Council (in October), to say what it thinks is the best way forward and the conditions under which it might consider a second referendum; 4) Ireland, otherwise, will have to say what it intends to do so that those member states which have ratified the treaty do not find themselves in an impasse.
These, of course, are not the exact words the German Chancellor used: the four points above were no doubt presented better, couched in finer terms, but the substance was clear. Perfectly sensibly, the Irish government has been more cautious. The prime minister says that time has to be taken to assess the situation and explore possible options, and the foreign minister has said that Ireland could bring forward an interim report, but not a solution in October (making hopes for the treaty's coming into effect before the European elections vain). The Commission president suggested cautiously that the October summit might be a good opportunity to discuss a scenario and a timetable.
In fact, the problem is in knowing what is meant by the intention and the duty to respect the Irish people and its choice. It would seem to me that there are two possible interpretations, and agreement has to be found. I will return to this next week. The Irish now know what they can get (a few statements added to the text?) and what is not possible: re-negotiation or abandonment of the treaty.
The outcome of the second part of the summit - action to be taken under French Presidency on oil prices, immigration policy, agricultural policy, food prices, etc - merits specific comment. In the following pages, readers will be able first to find out about the conclusions and accompanying stances.
(F.R./transl. rt)