Despite rejection of the Lisbon treaty, the Irish people are still quite clearly in favour of European construction; all the polls bear this out. It is, therefore, a strange situation and rather paradoxical that a keen pro-European country risks being left on the sidelines of EU progress and left out of helping to improve how the EU functions. This situation strengthens the opinion that holding a referendum is not the appropriate formula for a country to give its verdict on such a complex text, despite appearances, it is not really democratic. A text involving a large number of specific interests encourages a significant number of voters to base its vote on details that are of concern to them; together with the malcontents, a majority can occasionally be formed. The overall view and the synthesis needed for allowing the general interest to emerge is absent. It is therefore necessary to provide a robust clarification of the stakes at play and what the vote actually means.
An absurd slogan. In Ireland, one of the slogans that helped to swell the number of opponents more or less said that, if you don't understand vote no. Many voters followed this pseudo-logic, although as soon as the real significance of the treaty had been understood, a turnabout followed. An example? Agricultural organisations initially supported the no vote due to specific reservations about the CAP but which had nothing at all to do with the Lisbon treaty. They changed their line when they understood that rejecting the Lisbon treaty would mean victory for those opposed to common European policies and their funding. It should be pointed out that in international negotiations, only the EU as a whole can effectively defend the interests of agriculture. We read that farmers voted no to protest against the excessive paperwork involved in the CAP. They did not understand that CAP management modalities can always be revised by the institutions and do not result from a treaty. They also didn't understand that the real stakes at play involved Community preference and support for European production.
Beware of the traps. I therefore consider that another vote would not constitute undue pressure on citizens but simply an invitation to make their voice heard in knowledge of the facts rather than on the basis of lies (see this column yesterday) and demagogic arguments. If the no vote is borne out again, the other member states should respect that choice and Ireland will have to accept the consequences. The possibility of sliding from member state status to that of a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), is in my opinion, another trap of which the Irish should be aware. They have been told that they could therefore keep all the advantages of the common market without the political aspects of the EU. These brave apostles forget, however, to let Ireland know that the country would in this case be unable to participate in common EU policies (including the CAP), the single currency, as well as in its institutions (when the possibility of not having a permanent Commissioner figured in the arguments of the no campaign!).
Respond and clarify. It is obvious that the different states are sovereign but they need to be told the truth. The scale of the lies preceding the referendum beggared belief, added to which were the considerations that partly corresponded to the current state of public opinion but which had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. Does the EU appear too bureaucratic, remote from the people's concerns, absent from the social arena? The new treaty would help to facilitate a better response to these criticisms because it strengthens the democratic element of the Union, it simplifies institutional functioning and reaffirms the general interest objectives, involving, for example, the environment and the services of general interest. On the question of the composition of the European Commission, no definitive decision has been reached. This is an important aspect because it directly affects one of the arguments used in the election campaign and this column will be looking at the matter tomorrow.
What is completely justified in the line taken by the Irish authorities is the request for a reasonable deadline. If citizens are to be invited to vote again, valid reasons are necessary, which do not create the impression of simply being a means for obtaining a different result: a vote took place, nothing was untoward and we cannot behave as if this had not happened. Therefore, solid reasons and convincing arguments are required in order to justify another referendum. The government cannot guarantee that it will be possible for it to take a position next October, as the French presidency would like; it is more likely to be the end of the year. Pat Cox, the former president of the European Parliament, is even doubtful that another vote would be possible in 2009. Patience is required but the aim needs to be clear. (F.R./trans/rh)