What did the Irish say no to? Everyone goes on repeating that one should abide by the decision of the Irish people. Of course, we should. But how? Should one respect the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and try to move forward without Ireland? Or should one draw the conclusion that this treaty is dead and that it should be renegotiated? The European Council's response, backed by the other Community institutions, was clear - the treaty is still alive, ratification of it continues, and it must take effect as soon as possible. It is up to Ireland to state whether it wants to come back into the group (and in this case everything will be done to help it do so) or remain on the sidelines. The conclusions of the European Council leave no doubt about this.
Those who call for the treaty to be discarded or renegotiated are very much in the minority, if not almost inexistent (in the European Parliament and in some member states). The “sovereignists” and Far Right consider that the Irish “no” condemns European integration founded on common policies and strong institutions once and for all. They consider that the Lisbon Treaty is dead and that one should return to an intergovernmental conception of Europe, without transfers of sovereignty. According to the Far Right, the Irish people have condemned the lack of a social policy, the distance between Community action and the aspirations of the peoples, as well as the lack of democracy. These opinions are respectable but fail to take one undeniable reality into account, namely that the Lisbon Treaty has neither the ambition nor the possibility to determine the content of European policies. This is not the role of a treaty which defines institutional mechanisms and principles. What the Irish “no” rejects in practice at both legal and political level, is quite another thing. Rejection keeps in place for an unspecified amount of time those things that were criticised (as the current treaties remain in force) while acceptance would have made it possible to bring in instruments for moving on to something better!
In the legal and political reality, the “no” to the Lisbon Treaty rejects greater democratisation (greater power for the European Parliament, and increased participation by national parliaments), improved working of the institutions, as well as the strengthening of certain fundamental principles, such as explicit recognition of the role of services of general interest for the European model of society. Supporters of the “no” had invented that the new treaty brought in the right to abortion and euthanasia, as well as compulsory military service, and that it would have influenced the position of the EU in Doha Round negotiations, which are to be completed before the treaty takes effect.
The fundamental question. And so we come to the fundamental question: Is a referendum the appropriate instrument for allowing the people to speak out on a complex text? Political decision-makers do not dare speak out frankly and openly as they fear they will be accused of not being democratic and dread an unfavourable popular verdict. Not having a political career to defend, I do not have to hesitate in giving a negative response. For complex texts, the referendum is antidemocratic. Why? Because the result is determined by sectoral interests, even when they are incompatible with the general interest. Each category defends its own interests, which is only logical, as they are reasonable. But they are also partial.
We can take a few topical examples. Fishermen are fighting against having to break off tuna fishing and, from their point of view, they are right - but the general interest makes this measure a must in order to save the species, the marine environment and future fishing activity. Taxi drivers object to the increased number of licenses even in towns where these are insufficient, but the general interest means this must be done. All categories have the right to set out their reasons and must be listened to - and they must receive compensation. But in a referendum, the accumulation of sectoral interests inevitably leads to a larger number of opponents, and hence to a majority “no” that runs counter to the general interest.
The democratic regime has an instrument that is in place precisely to define the general interest, while taking into account the various sector-specific differences: and that is the Parliament. A referendum is the appropriate way to consult the public for questions to which the answer can be “yes” or “no”. For a complex text, too many citizens choose in relation to their own personal interest, whatever the general interest may be, and the result is distorted. This, moreover, is the reason why leading personalities consider the Irish people should be asked, quite explicitly, whether or not they want their country to remain a full member of the European Union. Recent facts prove that countries that have gained opt-outs (Great Britain, Denmark) would like to pull out … (F.R./transl.jl)