The Irish question (18/6/08)

The EU institutions are blocking their ears. France and Holland rejected the EU constitution in 2005. After this defeat, the constitution was abandoned and EU officials began to draft a new document, the Lisbon Treaty, which could be ratified by the parliament of almost every member state without the need for troublesome referendums. Several European leaders have openly or privately acknowledged that had they held a referendum in their own country, the Lisbon Treaty would have fallen. As it was, Ireland was the only country whose citizens were given a vote on the issue, and they voted against.
If an alien were to observe the situation from a neutral planet in outer space, might he not conclude that the Lisbon Treaty is an undemocratic solution? Or that EU leaders, guessing in their hearts that their own people would also have rejected the treaty, should abandon the idea of pushing it through?
The Lisbon Treaty requires the unanimous ratification of all 27 member states before it can be implemented, yet the two most senior figures in the EU now seem willing to suggest that this basic rule has become pliable, judging on their recent comments. President of the European Commission José Manual Barroso insists that the treaty is still alive, and has urged member states to continue with the process of ratification. That is certainly their right, but is it not an exercise that is null and void? President of the European Parliament Hans Gert Poettering has described the treaty as an ‘absolute necessity’ and said, ‘it remains our goal to see the Lisbon Treaty enter into force before the European elections of June 2009.’ He has called on Taoiseach Brian Cowen to submit proposals as to how we can jointly ‘progress beyond this difficult phase in European politics’. In other words, Brussels is refusing to accept the Irish ‘No’ vote.
Of course, all of those involved in tortuous years of drafting and redrafting the text of the treaty, or who lobbied hard for Lisbon in good faith, are entitled to feel bitterly disappointed. But it is unfair to vent that anger on the electorate, or to brand Ireland as selfish, anti-European, or somehow ungrateful for almost the vast amounts of EU money (almost €20 billion worth of structural funds) since 1973. What happened was that we were asked our opinion on proposals for a new set of rules for the game. For reasons as many and varied as the rules themselves, we disagreed. It doesn’t mean we want out of the game.
As with every European referendum, there were some who voted ‘No’ for misguided reasons, or because they didn’t understand the treaty. But many more voted ‘No’ conscientiously, believing that a clearer, more democratic blueprint for Europe should be made available not only to Ireland, but to every EU citizen.
The Taoiseach should not go to Brussels with bowed head, apologising on behalf of his country. He should stand over the Irish vote, and seek instead with other European leaders to take a good look at what might be wrong with the treaty, instead of what might be wrong with the Irish electorate. The European project cannot proceed without its people, and to press on regardless would undermine the democratic principles upon which the EU is founded, and deepen what must be recognised as a widening gulf between politicians, power structures, and ordinary citizens.