Clarity is necessary. Ireland will have to decide: either accept the Lisbon treaty, thanks to the clarifications introduced to help soothe the misgivings and fears of the people or remain on the sidelines of European construction (see this column yesterday). This does not at all mean exerting undue pressure on the Irish people, on the contrary, it signifies a commitment to respecting its choice, whatever it is, with more leeway to collectively examine the appropriate measures to enable Ireland maintain its acquis, whatever transpires.
Having supported this position from the outset, objections have been raised as to why I didn't express such rigour when France and the Netherlands voted no. This criticism appears to ignore the fact that: a) the text was not the same, the nature of the Constitutional and an Amending Treaty is different; b) a second negotiation took place that took into account the misgivings and objections of each state; c) the reactions from several member states were radically different in the two cases. Although several member states interrupted their ratifications during the first negotiations because they saw the Constitutional Treaty as being dead, this time the opposite approach was unanimously supported. The possibility of a third round of negotiations has been ruled out by all, because several years would be required for such an exercise to take place, during which there would be no reforms or further accessions (several member states have indicated that there will be no EU enlargement as long as there is an absence of institutional reform). This firm line is also justified by other reasons that can be summed up in one sentence: any state is free to decide but it has to accept the consequences.
“No vote” lies. One journalist pointed out that we should always be aware of the perverse effects that one's actions may have. We say no and we compel the others to renegotiate and then impose a number of conditions to gain advantage; this is unacceptable. Analysis of the Irish vote has proved to what extent the proponents of the no vote based their arguments on lies. They affirmed that the new treaty would force Ireland to: abandon its neutrality, introduce a law on abortion and gay marriage and impose tax measures by majority voting. Why didn't the government declare, out of equal respect for the partisans of both the no and yes votes in the election that these claims were lies and clearly point out the real provisions in the Lisbon treaty? Another argument played a significant role and the polls prove it: Ireland would lose the permanent right to having a European Commissioner of Irish nationality. What went unsaid, however, was the fact that the Treaty of Nice (which would remain in force) imposes a reduction in the number of Commissioners as from next year, whereas the Lisbon Treaty maintains the status quo until 2014 and the possibility from then on to amend the rule reducing the number of Commissioners by a simple European Council decision. I am aware that legal complications were mentioned as to the provision's limitations and the experts are looking at whether the European Council would actually be able to get rid of the principle of reducing the number of Commissioners or simply change the modalities. But the fact remains that in the absence of the new treaty, the reduction of the number of Commissioners is imminent, whilst the Lisbon treaty leaves several more years to discuss the matter.
Another vote is not inconceivable. The factors cited above are in my opinion enough to politically justify another consultation of the Irish people by informing them (through declarations formally supported by all member states) of the reality of the Lisbon treaty on the points mentioned and by announcing the unanimous determination to use, when necessary, the provision in the Lisbon treaty pertaining to the composition of the Commission. According to information available, no member state wants this formula to be included in the treaty, which effectively means they all want it to be revised. Several of them explicitly indicated this at the informal meeting on the 12/13 July in Brest between ministers and secretaries of state for European affairs.
Irish citizens must understand that the majority of member states are determined to consolidate and improve how the EU works. Ireland could obtain certain derogations if its people so wishes, as other member states have done so in the past. If, despite the explanations and concessions, the “no” vote is confirmed, the situation will become legally complex but the countries in favour of deepening European construction will not be prepared to abandon the treaty. In this case, Ireland's position in the EU should be discussed, which would be a strange situation because the Irish are, according to all the polls, one of the member states most in favour of European construction.
(F.R./trans/rh)