Only one alternative. In the Irish affair, the understandable effort made to avoid a too explicit and blunt affirmation of the situation has failed. Reality dictates that Ireland, following the no vote in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, has only one alternative: either vote a second time or partially remain on the sidelines of planned developments. The European institutions avoided this kind of coarse language for two valid reasons: to avoid creating the impression that Ireland was being put under any pressure by imposing obligations on the country and to enable the Dublin government to assess the situation and be the first to speak.
Everything's been said. Everything was in fact said in the line expressed by the European Council on 19-20 June, whereby ratifications would continue so that the Lisbon treaty entered into force as soon as possible. This attitude is radically different to that expressed after the no votes in the French and Dutch referendums on the draft constitutional treaty, when several member states, the United Kingdom at the head of them, decided to suspend ratification procedures and declared that the treaty was dead. This time, the European Council unanimously declared that the Lisbon treaty was definitely alive and they needed to complete the ratification process. Ratifications are effectively speeding up, in Great Britain and elsewhere. According to the European Parliament, the Lisbon treaty has to enter into force before the next European elections.
The text must subsequently remain unchanged because any idea of amending it, even just a single comma, would imply new ratification throughout the EU. This is why the Summit's decisions mean that it is up to Ireland to decide: vote again or remain on the sidelines.
Two worrying factors. It was tacitly agreed that nothing should be expressed too brusquely and that the Irish authorities should have the first word on the matter. The Community institutions respected this duty to reserve comment. The Committee of Permanent Representatives prevented any debates taking place in Brussels with other national delegations. The Council's spokesperson indicated that no analysis was being developed by its legal services on the situation until the Irish authorities had made known their intentions. Two elements, however, upset this waiting-game: the analyses from academia, which does not consider itself bound by political considerations, and a few utterances made by Nicolas Sarkozy, president of the European Council, on the need for an Irish vote next spring.
Independent legal analyses signposting an “exit to the crisis” were based on two factors: a) declarations do not change the Lisbon treaty in the slightest but certify that the treaty itself consolidates the autonomy of member states in domains such as abortion, divorce, tax matters (where the unanimity rule remains in force) and defence; b) the political commitment of member states to apply the Lisbon treaty provisions at the appropriate time, which allow for rules to be modified on the future composition of the European Commission, in the sense of re-introducing the principle of “one Commissioner per member state”. Obviously, the academic world did not comment on the feasibility and political timeliness of this double initiative but it does consider that it is possible from a legal point of view. It should be emphasised that the absurd nature of the Lisbon treaty on the composition of the Council had already been criticised in the meetings and colloquies preceding the Irish vote. The need to revise it had already been acknowledged.
The second factor that broke these precautions, were the informal observations made by Nicolas Sarkozy. These observations immediately prompted explanations in France itself (where it was indicated that these were not declarations but simply comments) and a sharp polemic in Ireland. In his meetings on Monday in Dublin, Mr Sarkozy himself underlined that he had never spoken about another referendum but rather the need for the Irish to clarify their wishes (see the report in the following pages). At the same time, the opponents of the Lisbon treaty, especially in Ireland but also elsewhere, claim that the treaty is dead, as if the wishes of the other member states had no value or meaning at all.
Tomorrow, I will indicate why in my opinion, the EU should stand firm on the viability and entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, while fully respecting the decisions Ireland will be making. (F.R./trans/rh)