Euroblog Coverage: The Irish 'No'

We can only have little idea of what the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty will mean for the institutional question in the European Union. The matter, simply, will be dealt with by the leaders of the governments we have elected. Whether they deal with it in a realistic way, or try to ignore reality for as long as possible as was the case with the 'Constitution', is now the big question.

In scanning the European blogosphere for analysis of the 'no' vote, it becomes clear that a lot of well-meaning analysis on the course of further action has not been held back by the clear disconnect between the governments and the people, which now exists on a level where it is hard to imagine a government holding a genuine conversation with the public if it wanted to.

This situation must have become maddening for the national governments, but it is hard to pity them as they do not even try. Quite the opposite. The Lisbon Treaty process represented a flight into secrecy and obscurity which met its logical end in an Irish referendum where the 'no' vote was primarily motivated by a lack of understanding for the Treaty's contents.

To the analysis of others:

Jan Seifert (blog) has a piece up in German on zoomer.de. Jan campaigned for the 'yes' vote in Dublin. From the reactions he got, it became apparent that the 'no' campaign had been successful in reaching the people with its message, as he was often left clarifying myths. This indicates that the government itself had not been successful with its effort to inform the public. More information, however, might not help. The Lisbon Treaty presents a range of technical changes to the existing foundational architecture of the EU without a unifying European idea. This is an impossible sell for any goverment facing an apprehensive population. The Europe of the "governments, secret negotiations and technical reforms" is incapable of inspiring enthousiasm.

Still, Jan thinks the most likely course will be other countries ratifying and Ireland being forced to a re-vote, or to exit the European Union.

J. Clive Matthews (Nosemonkey blog) gets the honour of being the first to declare the Lisbon Treaty 'dead'. Europe, according to Clive, is too diverse for 'one size fits all' solutions like the Lisbon Treaty, or the dead Constitution it was meant to resuscitate. Politicians should now not repeat the same mistake by dressing up the corpse and trying to get it through by another name. Instead, defeat of Lisbon and the Constitution must be accepted. It is time for more radical solutions -- a complete re-think of what the European Union is for. In a related post, Clive calls for looking more closely at the evolution of political integration in the United States, which did not happen merely by the stroke of a pen.

Jon Worth (blog) had a very early post urging calm on the 'no' vote. He calls for continuing ratification, suspending work on institutions that will only be created after the treaty passes, looking carefully at the reasons for the Irish 'no' and perhaps running a better campaign next time. He also notes that there is little chance that there will be a measured response along those lines. Indeed, both the Czechs and the Swedes are already indicating that they might suspend ratification.

Stanley Crossick (blogactiv blog) maligns the use of referendums to approve complex treaties and states that a veto is unacceptable in a Union of 27. He notes that there are now three options. Abandon the treaty, make a declaration and have the Irish vote again, or go ahead without Ireland. France and Germany consider the new treaty a necessity. The 'no' vote weakens the Union at a time when many challenges have to be addressed at the European level. National governments should tell their electorates the truth about why we need the EU and admit that more economic and social policy is now made in Brussels than nationally.

James Rogers (Global Power Europe blog) sets up a comparison with an American book called 'The Last Days of Europe'. Rogers thinks that the result of the Irish vote shows that the Irish are living in a bubble of wealth and apparent security and are thus unable to grapple with the future, which will bring renewed great power competition, a challenge from islamism, global warming, and so forth. Much of Europe has gone down the same path, embracing pacifism while relying on the strength of others to provide security. What Europe needs right now are bold leaders who will sort out the institutional question. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown should press ahead with ratification. If unification is blocked, Europe would be pulled apart.

Carl Gardner (Head of Legal blog) calls for ending ratification of the treaty, and warns against letting the Irish vote another time. The 'no' vote is a result of the lack of influence the people have on politics in Europe. This lack of influence causes them to punish the politicians for not listening to them. Instead of merely talking about 'bringing Europe closer to the people', politicians should actually do so. There should be something along the lines of a ten-year moratorium on new treaties, and afterwards treaty changes should be implemented piecemeal after they have been put to individual referendums in each Member State.

Ralf Grahn (Grahnlaw blog) states that it is unthinkable to let the Irish vote again, but also finds it unpalatable to let the Irish block changes that the other 26 Member States agree upon. He proposed going further on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty, by changing the articles relating to its entry into force. It would arrange for an entry into force if enough states have ratified it, with non-ratifying states exiting the EU and entering something like the European Economic Area. They can then re-enter the EU at their own time.

Richard Corbett, MEP (blog) calls to mind the Danish reaction to their failed referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Back then, the Danes came with proposals to find a way out. Ireland should first figure out what it is that it does not like about the Lisbon Treaty, and then come up with a list of suggestions. Corbett notes that a lot of the arguments made against the treaty were really not valid. After the Irish have come up with a solution and changes have been made -- preferably not by changing the Treaty in a way that would require renewed ratification -- the Irish should vote again.

Ralph Keating (Gulf Stream Blues blog) thinks that the consequences of the Irish 'no' vote will make 2009 a very bad year for the European Union and that if the EU does not solve its serious structural problems soon, it risks completely disintegrating within a few years [aside: this is known as the bicycle theory of European integration]. The EU is in a dilemma, with low public legitimacy coupled to low public interest and knowledge.

Many perspectives of the same animal...

And that's not all. Links partially via abovementioned posts, Erkan's roundup, and rz -- who seems as nonplussed as I am. Lots of speculation in this monster Eurotrib comments thread, and some brainstorming about an initiative here.