National identities will be safeguarded. Ireland has been the sole topic of this column this week. I believe that that is only right, because the fate of the Lisbon Treaty is at stake, as well as that of a member state which has on many occasions shown its European spirit. An Irish Prime Minister welcomed his country's becoming a net contributor to the Community budget, saying that, having enjoyed European support for its development, it was only fair that Ireland play its part in helping those member states where the standard of living was still below the Community average. That is what is meant by European solidarity.
Europe needs the Lisbon Treaty if it is not to fall bake into inaction. To get Ireland to take part, what is needed is not pressure, but explanations, and solid arguments. The lies of the No campaign have been revealed. Ireland, like all member states, has the right to retain its identity and convictions within the European framework. If it wants to retain the ban on abortion and gay marriages, and to keep its political neutrality, it can. If it wants to oppose tax plans being discussed, it can block them because there still has to be decision by unanimity. The Irish have to be told this, and be told that Declan Ganley is lying when he says that the Lisbon Treaty is dead. The member states unanimously decided just the opposite.
Of course, the anti-Europeans and “separatists” all over Europe seized the Irish No vote to highlight their own anti-European arguments, sometimes very unpleasantly. Other political leaders used the situation to give vent to their ideas, for example, for a law imposing the right to abortion everywhere. Imposing something on a country that it doesn't want? Standardising traditions, beliefs and attitudes? That is not Europe's job: fanaticism is never a wise counsellor, even when intentions are good.
I believe that citizens can understand reality, and that the Irish authorities were wrong not to have explained things firmly and effectively before, and not to have fairly and squarely denounced the lies of some of the No campaigning. They would be wrong not to make plain the consequences for their country of finding itself on the sidelines of progress in European integration.
Everything is still possible on make-up of European Commission. The issue of the make-up of the European Commission has to be explained. The texts are clear: a) if the Treaty of Nice remains in force (as will be the case if the Lisbon Treaty does not come into effect next year, the number of Commissioners must be lower than the number of member states; b) if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, the “one Commissioner per country” situation will obtain until 2014. Thenceforth, the number of Commissioners should correspond to two thirds of the number of member states unless the European Council decides otherwise. The EU, then, has a number of years to consider and debate the matter. That there is the possibility of amending the format of “two thirds” with a rotation system based on the principle of equality without recourse to an amendment of the Treaty is a clear indication that this format was not felt to be satisfactory and that further consideration was required. Later analyses confirmed that the rotation system based on the equality principle would be practically inapplicable, and Philippe de Schoutheete predicted that it would never be put into practice. At a preliminary informal exchange of views among European Foreign Ministers (in Brest on 12-13 July), six member states indicated that they wanted a return to the one Commissioner per member state rule, and among these was Germany.
Since then, a number of lawyers have pointed out that the European Council could amend the number of Commissioners without affecting the principle that their number should be reduced in relation to the number of member states; the Court of Justice could challenge (if it was called on to do so) the legitimacy of a Commission which had the same number of Commissioners as member states. Other lawyers challenge this interpretation and say that it is unthinkable that the Court of Justice would become involved in legal squabbles and question the make-up of the Commission, a political action if ever there was one. The matter remains open and the whole problem has to be re-assessed, and this includes how to avoid turning the Commission into an ineffective and inefficient Assembly.
Conclusion: renegotiation is ruled out. Anyway, what is there to renegotiate, given that the protagonists of the No vote cannot agree on anything? Lisbon is the minimum that can be accepted by everyone. Giving it up would mean the anti-Europeans and separatists had won. This is something that has to be understood, in Ireland and elsewhere.
(F.R. /transl. rt)