What next for EU reform?

[orieleye]

After the Irish referendum: what next for EU reform? The shock of Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty should force European politicians to take steps to ensure that the EU is “owned” by - and serves - all its citizens, not just a political elite, speakers told an EPC Policy Dialogue. Despite the difficulties raised by the possible solutions to the Irish ‘No’ suggested so far, speakers expressed the hope that all countries would ratify the Treaty before the Euro- elections to prevent the vote being hijacked by anti-Europeans.
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Commenting on the consequences of the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Jo Leinen MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee, said European politicians had to be flexible and adjust to new situations in order to survive in an EU of 27 countries.

Following the Irish vote, other countries have raised doubts about their own ratification process: the Polish President has questioned the legality of signing the ratification document, and the Czech and German governments have said that they may have to address constitutional problems if they are raised by the courts.

However, Mr Leinen said there are important differences between the Dutch and the French rejection of the European Constitution in June 2005 and this time, as immediately after the Irish ‘No’ vote this June, the EU Summit had decided to push on with the ratification process.

He described three possible ways forward:

• stop the entire ratification process and throw out the Treaty - but this would be unacceptable as 20 countries have already ratified;
• negotiate the Treaty again - but it was agreed there would be no renegotiation;
• · convince the Irish population that they must ratify.

Mr Leinen said the Irish ’No’ vote was a sign of the gap between European citizens and Brussels throughout the EU. It was a form of “citizens’ rebellion” against the political classes, spurred on by mistrust and fear of economic and social decline, compounded by European Court of Justice judgements that the internal market is more important than basic employment rights, and free competition can be allowed to undermine social progress.

Now Europe’s citizens need a signal that the EU is not only a common market but also protects everyone, not just the super-rich.

The ‘No’ campaign in Ireland was a well-organised, dynamic, populist anti-European movement which gave a healthy shock to Europe’s leaders that they have to demonstrate that people “own” the EU.

Mr Leinen suggested that instead of this single national referendum on the Treaty, there should be a Europe-wide referendum in every EU Member State.

Turning to the timetable for deciding the fate of the Treaty, Mr Leinen thought it might still be theoretically possible to ratify the Treaty by 1 January 2009. Failing that, he hoped that it would happen in February or March, before the June 2009 European elections, to prevent populist parties hijacking the elections.
However, even if the Treaty is not ratified, the EU will continue to work, although less efficiently and democratically, possibly with a “two-speed” or “multi-speed” Europe.

Alan Dukes, former leader of the Fine Gael political party and former Director of the Irish Institute of European Affairs, was “shocked, but not surprised”, and “devastated but not de-energised” by the Irish ‘No’.

He believed the EU now had very few choices - if all 27 countries did not ratify the Treaty, the requirement for unanimity meant it was null and void. He wanted to avoid the complications of going back to the other Member States asking for further amendments.
A pan-European referendum along the lines Mr Leinen suggested would pose too many practical problems, said Mr Dukes. For example, what if the majority of countries voted in favour, but some did not?

He also rejected another ‘solution’: that all the other 26 EU countries should ‘resign’ from the Union and set up another body which would exclude Ireland. In general, he said, it would help Ireland if “friends would stop throwing out new suggestions”, as there should be a moratorium on comments until this October.

He disagreed that the problem lay in the ‘European democratic deficit’, pointing out that there was a general malaise in politics, as most people in the EU Member States are not interested in either local or national politics.

The campaign in Ireland showed him that people do not like the idea of a ‘European superstate’, preferring a more democratic structure. However, he said it was ironic that the European Parliament is in fact more democratic, responsive and transparent than many national parliaments.

Mr Dukes said he found the original Constitution a more readable document than the Lisbon Treaty, and suggested that there should be a campaign based on a consolidated version of the new Treaty, to be discussed in Ireland’s National Forum. It might then be possible for the country to deliver a positive vote on ratification at the beginning of 2009.

Pawel Swieboda, Director of the DemosEuropa think tank, said crises are not unusual in politics, but in this case the ratification problem had a disproportionate impact as the political class fears it will result in its losing power.

In Ireland’s case, the opinion polls showed that 76% of those who voted ‘No’ had expected Ireland to be able to renegotiate the package, as it had done on a previous occasion.

Mr Swieboda felt a discussion was needed on Europe’s finalité politique (i.e. end goal) in order to reach a “Cartesian decision” on the design of the EU political system. There should be debate on issues such as who “owns” the European Council, and whether every country needs to have a European Commissioner.

In general, the EU has become more introverted and defensive - a process which began when the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and showed itself in its institutional inability to intervene in the Yugoslav war without a proper security structure.

Mr Swieboda believed the participation rate in the forthcoming Euro-elections would be a test of how successful Europe is at talking to its citizens, as if this falls too low, , it will show that the EU cannot continue to progress by making its usual “fudges”.

Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul, Secretary-General Notre Europe, was “shocked” by the initial French reaction to the Irish ‘No’, given that France itself had rejected the Constitution, although she added that President Nicolas Sarkozy was now taking a more cautious line.

However, the difference between the French and Irish rejections is that the Irish only want to renegotiate parts of the Lisbon Treaty, whereas the French thought the entire Constitutional Treaty should be renegotiated.

While the “European democratic deficit” has been over-stated, she hoped the Irish vote would help people to draw the correct lessons, in contrast to muted reaction after the French rejection. Now people realise that there is a structural problem in the EU, as national and EU structures do not talk to each other.

Europe is not a “black box” with set solutions, said Ms Ricard-Nihoul.

In her view, the European Convention which drew up the original version of the EU Constitution had been a “revolutionary” democratic, transparent organisation, and could be reconvened if the Lisbon Treaty needs to be revised. However, she noted that many international organisations revise their treaties by majority decision, not unanimity.

European Policy Centre Website

owned, black box, revolutionary