Why, Ireland?

What are the underlying motivations which led the majority of Irish voters to say “no” to the Lisbon Treaty? What will be the repercussions upon the document’s ratification procedure? Which strategies could prevent a new standstill in the community’s integration process? These are hanging questions, which have been circulating these days in all EU environments. It’s hard to explain the defeat of the proposition. Some claim that its content is still too wide-ranging, “complicated” and hard to read. Others refer a general malaise affecting Irish society (economic slowdown, unemployment, price increase), which supposedly triggered a form of self-defense vis à vis what has been seen as an economically and socially “threatening” Europe (the same explanation was given at the time of the “Polish Plumber” and of France’s and The Netherland’s double “no” to the Constitution). Others are motivated by the fear of a loss of national cultural identity or political sovereignty to the benefit of the so-called “euro-bureaucrats”. There are many reasons to this choice, and they juxtapose one another. This defeat is all the more surprising considering that Dublin’s institutions as well as most parties, and most economic and social forces, were in favour of the ratification. It implies that prevailing motivations must have been deeply-rooted within the public opinion. Immediately after the scrutiny in different Countries some pointed the finger against Dublin, accusing Ireland of having run away from Europe despite the over 50 million euro allocated by Europe as community funds since 1973, the year of the adhesion to the “common home”. Which are the short-term consequences of the referendum’s result? Firstly, there is an “institutional question”. It was believed solved with the Lisbon agreement. However, it has returned to be the priority of the EU agenda, thus giving a secondary role to issues considered “closer” to citizens such as economic slowdown, security, migration regulations, relations with Russia, the problem of energy, the fight against climate changes, euro-Mediterranean policies… The popular vote of June 12 was probably also affected by the delayed enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty. It’s most likely that the EU will negotiate with Dublin a formula which will take into account the perplexities of the Irish population (opting out clauses). It will propose returning to the ballot boxes but most certainly it will not renounce the institutional compromise reached after overcoming so many difficulties in the Portuguese capital city. Instead of January 1st 2009, the Reform Treaty might see the light – if there are no surprises – the following May, on the eve of Strasbourg Parliament’s elections. A third consequence of the referendum is the revival of euro-sceptical if not even anti-European feelings, which have been hatching for a long time in almost all Member States, with varying political expressions and mobilizations in the different States. Two major issues relating to EU’s future are still on the table: do European citizens believe in the direct or indirect advantages triggered by the integration process? Moreover, did the Europe that has been developing throughout Strasbourg and Brussels remain faithful to the plans of the “founding fathers”? Ireland’s “no” doesn’t supply convincing answers but rather – we must admit- it solicits important questions which ought to be addressed in order to recover the path of “Europe’s common good”.