INSIDE POLITICS:Politicians will have to put their careers on the line to ensure a positive result in another Lisbon Treaty referendum, writes Stephen Collins
BRIAN COWEN got a sympathetic reception in Brussels over the past two days from the other EU heads of government who, as politicians, understand his predicament. They will do everything they can to help him out of the mess created by the Irish No vote, but one thing is crystal clear: they are not going to renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty.
Cowen succeeded in his immediate objective of avoiding having solutions imposed on him in Brussels. He also successfully resisted efforts to have an October deadline for an Irish response imposed on him. However, the Taoiseach does not have unlimited time and if he doesn't come back with a plan by the end of the year, the mood could turn nasty.
A second referendum in Ireland is regarded by most of Cowen's EU colleagues as the only solution. That poses huge problems for the Government. The obvious problem is the nature of any revised package to be put to the people but, even more critical, is the appalling vista that will open up if there is another No.
The mood was summed up by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who will take over the EU presidency in a few weeks. He described Cowen as an honest and
courageous man who had given a very clear description of the issues in the Irish referendum to his colleagues over dinner the previous evening.
However, the French president, who is planning to travel to Ireland next month, said at his press conference after the summit that "renegotiation of the treaty is excluded". While he will do what he can to help, changing the treaty will not be on his agenda during the French presidency.
Other EU governments will help the Government to come up with some limited concessions to facilitate a second referendum. There is a general willingness to deal with the commissioner issue, because precisely the same problem as was revealed in the Irish referendum exists for all other countries.
The neatness of it from a procedural point of view is that the plan to reduce the commission to 18 members could be dropped without reopening the Lisbon Treaty. There is a provision in the treaty allowing the number of commissioners to remain the same as long as there is unanimity among the 27 states.
The mood in Brussels suggests that the commissioner issue can be fixed, but after that it is up to the Irish to decide whether they want to add Declarations to the treaty, or opt out of some of its provisions.
Declarations are no problem, as they would simply involve agreed clarifications of issues already in the treaty. Opt-outs are more serious, as they would actually impair Ireland's involvement in crucial EU issues.
The likely compromise on the commissioner issue will actually not be as good for Ireland as the current proposal. Instead of having a strong commissioner for every 10 out of 15 years, Ireland will have the right to have a permanent commissioner, most likely with a small portfolio, all the time. The paradox is that real influence will be sacrificed for the illusion of it, because that is a proposition more saleable to the electorate.
Assuming that a deal can be done by the end of the year, most of our EU partners would like to see a second referendum before the European election in June, just in case those elections become a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty all across the EU. The nightmare scenario is that Eurosceptics, from far-right fascists to hard-left socialists, and a motley crew in between, could make significant gains across Europe as a result of the uncertainty created by the Irish No.
The other imperative for a decision before next June is that the Lisbon Treaty contains proposals for an expansion of the European Parliament. Euro constituencies have already been redrawn in Ireland to account for a cut in the number of MEPs from 13 to 12, and similar changes are due across the Union.
Assuming that an acceptable deal can be agreed with our 26 partners, the next question is whether the Government that ran such an incompetent Yes campaign over the past few months is capable of winning a referendum next year.
The remarkable aspect of the lacklustre campaign was that the loss of the first referendum on Nice was as strong a warning as Brian Cowen and colleagues could have had about the possibility of a No victory.
A bloodied Cowen will now have to up his game sufficiently to turn the tide next time. One heartening development over the past dreary week for the Government has been the performance of Micheál Martin as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He has developed a rapport with his EU ministerial colleagues, and has a quick grasp of the issues. That, linked to a persuasive style in interviews, could be a real asset in the next campaign in which he will play a leading role from the beginning.
Such a campaign will need everybody in Government and the main Opposition parties working at full throttle to explain to the voters not only what the treaty is really about, but the consequences of voting No a second time.
Dublin Labour MEP Proinsias De Rossa made an important point during the week when he said that any new proposals would have to be linked to an internal debate in Ireland about what the No vote signifies. That debate should also seek to establish what a majority of voters believe our relationship with Europe should be.
"Do we want to be a full partner, sharing power, responsibilities and benefits, or do we want to be semi-detached on the same basis as Norway for example, which benefits from the single market but has no say in decisions? . . . If the latter, then we negotiate on a completely different basis and the rest of Europe can proceed as it chooses with the Lisbon Treaty," said De Rossa.
While his fellow EU leaders did not raise that issue with Cowen directly, it was widely talked about in the corridors. The former Danish foreign minister Effe Ellmann-Jensen put the issue very bluntly.
"Ireland should do the rest of Europe a favour and withdraw from the European Union. That seems to be the only tenable solution to the situation created by the Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish have created a problem for themselves. They should not let it be a problem for others," wrote Jensen, who negotiated opt-outs for his country after the Maastricht Treaty referendum was defeated in Denmark in 1992.
While serving politicians across the EU have not been nearly as blunt, many share the same view. Chancellor Angela Merkel worked hard to ensure there was no strong criticism of Ireland from her Christian Democrat colleagues, and she will be as understanding as possible until the Government comes up with its proposals.
Just because criticism has been muted does not mean that there is not real resentment across most of the mainstream European parties at the referendum defeat. It is as well that the Irish voters should be aware of all the consequences of rejecting the Lisbon Treaty a second time around. What really irritated other Governments was that so much of the No vote was based on frivolous arguments that had nothing to do with the treaty.
According to the Eurobarometer poll, the vast majority of No voters say they believe in the union. It will be the Government's duty next time to make the supreme effort required to convert that positive feeling into a Yes vote, and politicians will have to put their own careers on the line in the interests of delivering the right result. The next referendum will essentially be about whether or not we wish to remain in the union as it is currently constituted. The voters as well as the politicians need to face up to that reality.