Finding a balance. How are the heads of state and government going to obtain a balance between two partially contradictory demands regarding the Irish problem? Most of the European Parliament is demanding that ratifications of the Lisbon Treaty are completed before the next European elections (in practice, in March or later), without which, any pro-European election campaign will collapse before it even begins. The majority of member states are, on the other hand, more sensitive about the demands made by the Irish government for prudence and which wants to avoid the risk of being rejected by the people for a second time and ending up with the burial of the Lisbon Treaty and the official creation of a two-speed Europe (with Ireland among the less ambitious countries).
With Declan Ganley's support…A variety of reasons justify at first glance, one or other of the theses. Consulting the Irish people for a second time is a delicate operation and the responsibility of choosing the right moment and appropriate modalities is up to the Irish people. The European Parliament hypothesis, however, in which the majority were Eurosceptic and “sovereignist” is not a fabrication of Mr Lamassoure. The same concern was expressed by Messrs Brok and Mendez de Vigo on behalf of the EPP Group (EUROPE 9758). The political forces involved are not hiding themselves and they don't have any reason to do so. The first page of “L'indépendance” journal, published by the political group of the EP Indépendance/Démocratie, exclusively focuses on an article by its director, Paul-Marie Coûteaux MEP. The title of the article is explicit, “Creation of a European No vote network”, in which I read that, “the the No to the Lisbon treaty camp is energetically organising throughout Europe…the dashing Declan Ganley has announced the creation of a European network for all No voters, with the objective of presenting candidates in a large number of nerve-centre countries during next June's European elections”. Mr Coûteaux points out that Mr Ganley is not sparing his time or his personal resources in the Irish referendum campaign, with notable success. He has also announced “his intention to expand the campaign throughout Europe and to transform the next European elections into an extensive referendum on Lisbon; this involves nothing less than sending Brussels and Strasbourg a majority of Euro-realist MEPs”. He concludes: “For the first time in 15 years we're ahead in the game: victory is within our grasp!”
We're no longer daring to defend a united Europe! Everything is there and also explicitly announced in the previous sentence: it's an early election campaign. The goal of winning a majority at the EP is, of course, legitimate and even in the most recent issue of the “Sovereignist” review, I only found three examples of what could be considered as stretching the truth or the facts somewhat. The question is therefore elsewhere but while the Euro-sceptics are organising and striving to seize the moment, the pro-Europeans are stalling and, afraid of appearing disconnected from the mounting tide of criticism of the EU, they are even accepting the most unjustified of accusations. They are failing to respond to the fashion of blaming all shortcomings and problems on Europe, even when it is actually the unity of Europe that has helped overcome these difficulties. The American Time magazine recently resumed in 20 points what the construction of a united Europe had brought Europeans. As well as the 60 years of peace (a situation that member states had never previously experienced) Time cites: agricultural policy, which has preserved the landscapes and re-established the continent's food autonomy; overcome economic backwardness in several member states (including Ireland); the Schengen area where borders have disappeared; the extension of “fundamental rights” to millions of citizens which did not have them before; the Erasmus programme for students; the cleaning up of European beaches; progress in food safety; the extension of democracy and freedom to the East, without forgetting the opportunity offered to the British press of informing its readers about a great many amusing stories about European construction but, as Time explains, which are almost always false.
Will the European Council succeed in reconciling these two demands: taking into account the Irish demand to extend the deadline for defining what way to go; and finishing the Lisbon Treaty ratification by March at the latest? We'll find out by the end of the week. As we know, Ireland is not actually the only member state lagging behind. Andrew Duff, the new president of the Union of European Federalists, has just declared that the key priority for 2009 remains the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. But will he be listened to?
(F.R./transl.rh)