The difficulties and differences over the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the timetable relating to it are deepening. The Irish government is asking for time to ask the people to vote again. Other governments are showing signs of understanding, or at least of resignation; some even give the impression of welcoming these hindrances. But at the same time the European Parliament is opposed to any slowdown, as it believes that the new treaty must enter into force before the European elections of June next year in order to avoid those elections being severely devalued.
Fear of failure. The wait-and-see position can be accounted for by the dire consequences which would attend any further failure, not only in the countries directly involved but for the project of relaunching European construction as a whole. The impetus, such as it is, would be lost and scepticism would gain ground. This is why, in the view of Jean-Claude Juncker, the Lisbon Treaty cannot enter into force before 2010 (see our bulletin 9741). How can we not consider the opinion of such an old stager of the European Council and President of the Eurogroup who was recently resoundingly backed for a third mandate? He does not think that the time is right for a second referendum in Ireland: there would be a danger of failure. The European Commission has come to a broadly similar conclusion (see our bulletin 9741), even if it has not expressed it officially. Several ministers from various member states have indicated that the Irish government intends to hold the new referendum in October or November 2009 and not before.
Risk for the European elections. On the European Parliament's side, Alain Lamassoure and Jo Leinen have energetically defended the opposite position. They consider it essential that the Lisbon Treaty is in force when the next European elections are held if we want the electoral campaign to be of interest to the public, focussing on objectives and choices linked to the treaty: the appointment of the new President of the European Commission, the extension of voting rights for the Parliament, general strengthening of the democratic nature of Europe's management, deepening common policies.
Jo Leinen, who chairs the European Parliament committee on constitutional affairs, demanded in a press release that Ireland vote next spring. In his view, six months is sufficient time to draw up any possible clarifications and opt-outs for Ireland's benefit and to explain them to the citizens. Why should a referendum be more easily won in the autumn than in the spring?
Alain Lamassoure takes an even harder line, asserting that: a) voters should know what kind of Europe they are voting for and what the powers of the MEPs they elect will be; b) a subsequent delay will have negative repercussions on several member states' support for the treaty, risking the whole thing.
Mr Lamassoure's fears are not without basis, far from it. The Czech parliament is not due to resume the ratification debate until the end of the year (once the Constitutional Court has ruled), and a three-fifths majority is required in both chambers for ratification. However, the Czech Republic is currently the most Eurosceptic of the member states, at least at institutional level, starting with the president of the republic (who will chair the European Council in the first half of next year). In the UK, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, has indicated that if he wins the general election in the spring of 2010 and the Lisbon Treaty is not in force by then, he will hold a referendum on the subject. Other divergences are possible if the uncertainty is prolonged. Mr Lamassoure draws radical conclusions from these considerations: if Ireland's ratification is not a fait accompli by next spring, the Lisbon Treaty will be no more, and the European elections will mark a triumph for Euroscepticism. “For these elections a lost referendum would almost be better than uncertainty”, he said.
Other repercussions. It should be added that the blockage of the Lisbon Treaty will create complications and uncertainty in the institutional functioning of the EU next year, as the number of MEPs to be elected and the number of commissioners to be appointed differs depending on whether the Treaty of Nice or the Lisbon Treaty is applied (see this column in bulletin 9738).
All of this offers a few fundamental considerations which we will look at in this column tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)