Simple principles. The EU should not be trying to coax anyone any more. The basic objectives of European construction have been accomplished: there can be no more wars in Europe (at least not between EU countries), the common market exists and there is food self-sufficiency. There is still a lot to be done and most member states are determined to progress towards a Union that is increasingly closer to their people. Those who do not share this objective, have the right to remain on the sidelines without their participation in the common market or subsequent rights being threatened. They cannot, however, prevent those who want to from going forward.
These are simple concepts. We can, however, observe a strange timidity and misgivings in seeking to affirm them. It is normal that any advance in European construction or any new treaty is discussed and negotiated by taking into account everybody's point of view. This was in fact initially done with regard to the Constitutional Treaty and then for the Lisbon Treaty. Procedures were far-reaching: instead of the customary diplomatic conferences, negotiation was conferred to a Convention that brought together all the European institutions, governments and national parliaments, in permanent liaison with civil society. After this, the goals were watered down and we slid from a constitutional to an amending treaty. Ultimately, following a two-fold negotiation where all views were expressed, agreement was unanimous. If one country changes its mind, it cannot call for negotiations to be reopened, and those that have ratified the project and which represent a very clear majority, are now beginning this exercise again. The country that said no is left on the sidelines and cannot prevent the others from carrying out what was collectively decided.
This is not the first time. The political authorities are in fact hesitating to tell the truth about the consequences of a rejection (the Irish were convinced that they could renegotiate one or other aspect of it). It is obvious that the decision of a people has to be respected. This is not the first time that this has happened. The United Kingdom withdrew from negotiations on the EEC in the beginning and remained outside the Community until it requested accession negotiations. Other countries joined after it. The Norwegian people preferred not to join. The EU therefore concluded specific agreements with Norway but the country does not participate in the institutions or common policies. Other “no votes” have occurred on further integration in Denmark and (earlier) in Ireland: their respective populations then agreed to change their vote in exchange for clauses or derogations that did not involve further ratification. Denmark is now considering giving up its derogations. When France and the Netherlands rejected the constitutional project, the text was renegotiated and its form modified but the operational parts stayed the same. Such an operation is only possible once: all member states rejected the idea of reopening negotiations on the Lisbon Treaty. It is therefore up to Ireland to find a solution that will enable the country to accept the treaty and acknowledge the definitive ratification made by the others. Modalities are being examined and this column will be looking at them again. The same conclusion obviously applies to any other member state that follows Ireland's example.
Solidarity is an overall principle. What has already happened has not been, in my opinion, discussed with sufficient clarity and firmness. Some reactions leave us with the impression that it is up to the countries that ratified the treaty to apologise. The Irish obviously had the right to vote as they saw fit but they have to accept the consequences. If, for example, a large number of member states were to reject the reforms and institutional system that will help the EU to function better, this does not mean all construction would collapse, but rather a change of direction and the abandonment of the Community method in exchange for a comprehensive return of the intergovernmental system and end to community policies and the solidarity this involves. Those who prefer this kind of Union can have it. But they must not imagine that this or that common policy will be able to survive and that solidarity can remain in one or other of the different areas, depending on the individual choice of each state. Every country would like to keep what suits it best: structural funds for some, agricultural policy for others, competition rules or the single currency for one or other of them. This kind of Europe could never work. Solidarity is not a commodity which we choose according to whether it is in one's interest or if it falls within our preferences but, rather, a general principle implying common commitments.
Many countries continue to believe in integration, the existence of a common interest and solidarity. Those that don't believe in these principles don't have to take part but they will believe in it later.
(F.R./transl.rh)