We are just at the start, not the end, of the process. The outcome of the European Council talks on how to get the Lisbon Treaty into force has got the ball rolling but the important stuff has yet to be achieved, in other words actually getting the treaty up and running. EU heads of state tried to give detailed responses to all types of issues, including some that are frankly less urgent at first sight, like transition measures for the new stable presidency of the European Council and the chairing of the Foreign Affairs Council by the vice-president of the European Commission. Everything has been planned, including the complicated calculations needed for a 754-member European Parliament. Ireland's demands and concerns were taken into full consideration but nothing has been decided about what to do next and nothing has yet been achieved.
Certain aspects of what was agreed require some comment:
1. The EU did not and will not put any pressure on Ireland. It was the Irish government itself that decided once it saw that the referendum result had been influenced by misunderstandings and ignorance that it was a good idea for the Irish to have the chance to vote again once the necessary clarifications had been won and concerns allayed. No changes have been made to the Lisbon Treaty - it remains the same version as approved by other member states. The Irish are clearly free to decide as they please, which will have new significance. They will no longer be voting for or against fictitious measures (on neutrality, taxation, abortion, etc) but on whether Ireland would be involved in the new phase of the European project with new powers (energy, services of general interest, etc) and working in a more democratic and flexible manner.
The people who oppose the idea of a new referendum are clearly scared of the outcome. Opinion polls show that the Irish want to be fully involved in progress in the European project. The anti-democratic thing would be to stop them from expressing their views on fundamental issues rather than on the lies that distorted the first referendum. The Irish now understand what excluding themselves from future progress in the European project would mean - some repercussions can already be felt. Their choice will be respected, whichever way they vote, and the country will retain the rights it has already obtained in any case. The EU has always come to understandings with member states that want to remain on the fringes of certain bits of Europe, like the single currency, Schengen and so on. But every country has to accept the implications of what they decide.
One should not pay too much attention to the laments of people claiming that holding a new referendum on new issues would be anti-democratic. Why shouldn't people have the chance to change their mind? Who would say that Denmark should never have the chance to join the eurozone because the Danish once voted against it, or that Norway can never join the EU?
2. One member state, one commissioner. All the signs are that Ireland's position will be agreed to on one institutional aspect - each member state will keep its own European commissioner, as allowed by the Lisbon Treaty. This is not just Ireland's view and one should not make the mistake of thinking it is just the small countries that want a commissioner per member state. It is the big member states that are starting to get worried about the ridiculous political fallout of the 'fair rotation' rule. The Baltic states and countries from the former Yugoslavia would still always have two or three commissioners but France and Germany would sometimes not have one. Barroso is reported to have said that his 27 member European Commission works well and is more coherent than some Commissions in the past, even though they had fewer members. One should be aware that the number of member states sometimes increases because an old member state splits into several parts (the old state of Serbia (not yet a member of the EU) would have three commissioners already because there would be a commissioner for Montenegro and another one for Kosovo). Careful consideration is required on how the Commission should operate and also on how its role will change with the spread of Parliament-Council codecision.
The Benelux countries point out that the reduction in the number of commissioners would not have been made in isolation but was simply one part of a broader institutional reform to change voting calculations on the Council and the composition of the European Parliament. The European Council has already taken partial account of this by increasing the number of MEPs. Reflection is just at its starting point.
(F.R./transl.fl)