For the first time the incoming French EU Presidency has talked of unravelling the Lisbon Reform Treaty to accomodate Irish concerns. Speaking  in Brussels, French Secretary of State for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet said that the outcome of his President's visit to Ireland in July would clarify whether ”there is a need to reopen or not to reopen the Treaty”. In their campaign against the Treaty, opponents had long stressed that the Irish government should renegotiate the pact to achieve “a better deal” for Ireland, notably the retention of an Irish Commissioner. At the European Council meeting in Brussels on June 19th and 20th, EU Heads of State and Goverment - most vocally French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel - had vehemently argued against reopening talks on the Treaty, pointing to the fact that exemption clauses for Ireland might be a way forward.

Already the Poles are using the Irish ‘No’ as an argument against accelerating the final steps in their national ratification process. The Polish government proved particularly tough in the final stages of the negotiation toward the compromise which constitutes the Lisbon Treaty. With doubt now spreading over how best to proceed, the Polish President has said he would hold off on pushing ahead with the last step in his country's ratification process until it was clear that the Treaty would pass in all remaining countries. Many EU Member States have had amend their Constitutions, or in Poland's case modify laws that regulate the collaboration of the legislative and executive branches of the government.

In the UK, meanwhile, Eurosceptic millionaire Stuart Wheeler has lost his bid to force Gordon Brown's hand in putting the Lisbon Reform Treaty to a referendum.  Although Wheeler has sworn to appeal the High Court's judgement that the Treaty showed "nothing'' in the claimant's case to cast any doubt on the lawfulness of ratifying the treaty without a public vote, experts believe ratification in the UK will go ahead as planned.

The Financial Times is reporting that progress toward regularized EU-Russian collaboration will be negatively impacted by the lack of progress on the Lisbon Treaty ratification. Russian officials want to see the ratification process move ahead, in part for the clarity it would bring with respect to foreign affairs: “"With the Lisbon treaty in force and a clearer picture of how the EU is organised it would have been easier to negotiate the pact‚¬Â°.‚¬Â°.‚¬Â°.‚¬Â°I hope it won't delay the negotiating process," says Moscow's ambassador to Brussels, Vladi­mir Chizhov.

In light of looming energy resource issues and a desire for stable relations with the enlarging Union's Eastern neighbor, European officials have been hard at work crafting a ‘high-level’ discourse on issues including trade and investments with Russian counterparts.

The Lisbon Reform Treaty forsees the creation of a European Foreign Minister and a term (though permanent) European President, arguably giving other nations - to quote Henry Kissinger - a “number to call when they want to talk to Europe.” 

Only a week after the resounding Irish ‘No’, EU leaders faced the difficult task of formulating a response at a weekend summit that was slated to address the rather mundane issues of governing an almost unwieldy Union of 27.

Instead, EU heads of state and government faced yet another “crisis,” likened by some to the “abyss” created by the negative votes on the Lisbon Treaty's predecessor, the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty. After the referenda in France and the Netherlands, the Union's response was to enter a “period of reflection”. The cumbersome construction of governance, which the Nice Treaty dictates doesn't exactly allow for quick reaction, nor was it prudent at the time. The rejection of the Constitutional Treaty underlined a legitimacy problem key to the entire European project: What is it all for? Citizens in two of the Union's founding states had lost sight of the extent to which the EU benefitted their lives. Thus, leaders agreed to pare the Constitution down to its basics and focus largely on questions of governance, starting with the functioning of a 27+ - member, “ever closer Union”, not the creation of a federal super-state feared by many.

Institutional reform is a difficult platform to campaign on. My respect and admiration goes out to the Irish ‘Yes’ campaigners. Whether or not the Lisbon Reform Treaty was just not 'sexy’ enough to rally voter support, or whether it was too difficult to understand, the campaign was badly run or the ‘No’ side just had the winning arguments will be hard to determine, though analysts are already hard at work.

But what of the EU response on the weekend? Or should I say: What response? To quote the EU Council Conclusions:

“The European Council noted (emphasis added is my own) the outcome of the referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty and took stock (aha!) of the situation on the basis of an initial assessment provided by the Taoiseach Brian Cowen.

The European Council agreed that more time was needed to analyse the situation. It noted that the Irish government will actively consult, both internally and with the other Member States, in order to suggest a common way forward.”

Impressive. The Council takes note - now there's a European Union I can throw my weight behind. The European Policy Centre is far more diplomatic, when it says “In sum, the language is very cautious and no specific commitment or recommendation is made.” (The EPC also has an excellent look into the political and institutional problems ahead)

True, there is no Plan B. The Union's true response: Lisbon or bust. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the ‘mother’ of the Lisbon Reform Treaty negotiations and the incoming President of the European Union, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated this point at the Summit. Contrary to the 2003 crisis, most Member States (save the Czech Republic, whose situation is a little more tricky) are forging ahead with ratification. The implicit - and so far only legal alternative - goal could be to push Ireland into a second vote, once exceptions (on neutrality, an Irish Commissioner, etc.) have been negotiated.

At this point no other Member State is leaning toward untying a package so precariously wrapped up during the German EU Presidency. Negotiating exceptions to certain rules to accomodate the Irish, however, might reopen Pandora's box over time. The Czech government has its issues with the Treaty and is in the midst of an appeal to the country's Constitutional Court with respect to its compatibility. The compromise achieved with Poland was tricky. At least Italy's Berlusconi, the new-old Prime Minister is pushing ahead with ratification in his country, lest he throw a wrench in the process simply to make a political statement.

Ireland's ‘No’ will not 'shut down’ the Union - it will continue to do business and legislate as usual. However, aside from a possible wave of ‘exceptionalism’ noted above, the obvious delay of the entire ratification process does have implications for enlargement (the Nice Treaty provisions weren't conceptualized for a Union beyond 27 and Croatia would be the first to feel the effects), immigration policy (the Lisbon Treaty alters the legal basis of most legislation concerning justice and home affairs) and will likely alter the tone of the election campaign for the European Parliament in 2009.

In light of this ‘No’ the European Union as a whole cannot afford to be seen as simply 'taking stock’ and ‘noting’ current developments. Of course solutions take time to formulate, but Europe's citizens are already confused (not least the Irish - 22% of the naysayers felt they knew too little about the Treaty) about what it all means. For all the work the Commission has poured into its ‘Plan D’ to enhance the legitimacy of the Union, we now need a functional way forward. One can thus only hope that ratification continues and any exceptions are negotiated swiftly and stable, tenable results are achieved. Only if the Council is seen to be addressing the situation adequately is there truly hope for an “ever closer Union.”

When US President George W. Bush made what will likely be his last visit to Europe for the EU-US Summit two weeks ago, Iran was one of the only points both sides could still sink their teeth into. While Europe and the US have had diametrically opposed methods of dealing with the country, with the EU pushing for diplomatic discourse and the US teetering on the brink of military action, the European Union enhanced its foreign policy clout earlier in the week by stepping up sanctions against Iran.

The sanctions include a freeze on the assets of one of the country's largest banks suspected to be a major sources of the funding for Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. In addition, the 27-member bloc announced it would curtail deny access to its territory to “experts” associated with the country's suspected nuclear program and restrict financial flows to Iranian companies linked to activities that could support the development of a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Though not all votes are counted and official results are not expected until later this afternoon, Ireland's Europe Minister is already conceding defeat in his country's referendum on the EU Reform Treaty. Though the margin is narrow, it seems that the ‘No’ victory (at 52% vs. a predicted 48% ‘Yes’ vote) is clear.

It is a true Friday the 13th for the new Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, who assured all those fretful in Brussels that he had done “everything possible” to get his countrymen and women to see the benefit of the treaty.

Full coverage, including a roundup of results will follow in the coming hours, but the Irish Times has a constantly updated website here. Already, however, masterminds in the French capital are scrambling for ideas for a modus operandi. France takes over the rotating EU Presidency on July 1 and the government has already vowed to taking the remaining ratification procedures in other EU member states further. Much like the dark days three years ago, following the resounding ‘NON’ and ‘NEE’ votes in France and the Netherlands, the summer EU Summit in just a week's time will focus on how to react to what could be perceived as yet another fundamental crisis of legitimacy for the European Union.

There is a nervous anticipation in the air in Brussels. Today is the day that might undo the fragile compromise negotiated by Angela Merkel during Germany's Presidency of the European Union.

Eyes grew wider with anguish when the Irish Times reported earlier in the week that the ‘No’ camp had overtaken the pro-Lisbon Treaty faction in the polls. What is clear is that it will be an extremely close vote.

But who are these nay-sayers that may be poised to undo an incomplete, though “best-possible-given-the-circumstances” compromise to reform and streamline the unwieldy 27 member ship that is the Union? The Guardian says it best:

“..ultra-rightwing Catholics, traditional nationalists, pro-American free marketeers and the far left. Add in a pop star and a turkey puppet called Dustin and you have a force which threatens to sink a reform project designed to transform how nearly 500 million Europeans are governed.”

As is always the case with contested votes, the undecided electorate and the overall turnout will play a disproportionate role in the final decision. Despite government efforts led by new Taoiseach Brian Cowen and supporters, 60% of the public still felt they were ill informed about the impact the Treaty would have on their lives and the status of Ireland within the Union. Unsurprisingly, then, that the eclectic ’No’ camp has preyed on these fears: Some argue that the Lisbon Treaty will allow abortion to sneak in through the back door, others are concerned about how it might affect Ireland's corporate tax base, still others - including the only male member of pop act The Corrs - argue that signing on to the reform treaty is akin to remilitarizing one of the few remaining neutral countries in the European Union.

In a last minute publicity stunt, free-market advocating businessman Declan Ganley, who heads Libertas, the ‘No’ group that wants to see Ireland's politicians negotiate a “better deal” for the country, bought one way tickets to Brussels for the country's leadership, arguing they shouldn't return unless they came back with a Commissioner and significantly more influence for the green isle (the Lisbon Reform Treaty creates a more streamlined EU executive, with rotating Commissioners, eradicating the traditional “one Commissioner per country” practice).

But honestly: What's the worst that could happen if Ireland says no? Will it truly be the unravelling of the Union? My former colleague, EU expert and Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, Antonio Missiroli predicts that practicality might prevail: The first option might be to organize a second referendum (this would be highly dependent on the margin of the ‘No’ camp win), the second might include a renegotiation of additional Irish opt-outs from the Treaty to satisfy skeptics and/or in the worst case (and given the amount of subsidies that Ireland still receives, no one could possibly want this solution), Ireland would pull-out of the European Union altogether.

Whether or not any of these options will have to be considered is only a matter of hours. We will feature a roundup of results and commentary in tomorrow's blog.

Just as the demands for increased female leadership in the EU become more vociferous, a new study reveals that enormous income gaps in some of the Union's largest countries are hurting women's chances and having a harmful effect on the economy as a whole. Speaking to German daily, Die Welt, the EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Vladimir Spidla, revealed the findings of a recent EU study on wage discrimination, which highlights that women in the Union's most populous economy, Germany, earn 22% less than their male counterparts in average hourly wage. This makes Germany one of the states with “the highest inequality in the payment of men and women,” Spidla said. Estonia, Cyprus and Slovakia offer a similar bleak picture, with averages the same or slightly higher than the German figure (the EU average is 15%).

Spidla points to the fact that too many German women still choose to work part-time, in jobs that are underpaid, because of the lack of opportunities for child and elderly care. Germany still largely operates as a male-driven society, where the man is the breadwinner and the woman - irrespective of her level of education or opportunities in the work force - stays home. Over the past two administrations, important changes have been made, with the introduction of increased flexibility in childcare, new forms of parental financial support, and greater emphasis on the role of employers, who are losing out on valuable labor. The prospects of demographic decline has hastened the government response to these pressing issues, but at the study proves, results are yet to be felt.

The Financial Times Deutschland (quoted in the English language version of Der Spiegel), also points out the detrimental consequences of a lack of women in the labor force in times when qualified workers are scarce and offers a European comparison:

“Regardless of the discrimination issue, it's a problem for the economy, which is crying out for skilled employees, if women are thwarted in their careers. That's what happens if they’re made to choose between having children and having a career. Belgium has excellent child-care provisions — and is among the countries with the lowest wage differentials between men and women in the European Union. Germany is at the other end of the scale. Silent reserves of qualified women could be used here.”

Naturally, a real solution to Germany's skilled labor problem is a combination of utilizing existing labor resources (i.e. motivating women to return to work after childbirth by offering feasible solutions to combine both work and family) and creating a feasible, flexible labor migration system as proposed through the EU Blue Card. However, changing policies is one thing - changing mentalities is another!

Just as a woman bows out of the race for the most powerful political office in the world, calls for a female leadership role in the European Union are swelling. Launched by Danish Socialist MEP, Christel Schaldemose, the ‘Females in Front’ initiative is looking to fill one of the key posts in the 27-member Union with a well-known woman. In 2009, the Heads of State and Government will be looking to nominate candidates for the leadership positions in the Union: President of the EU Council of Ministers, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Until now, only one of these posts has ever been held by a woman: Simone Weil and Nicole Fontaine served as Presidents of the European Parliament, one in the late seventies and the other in the late nineties.

Schaldemose is looking for 1 million signatories to her petition for it to have enough clout to influence nominations. Naturally, German chancellor Angela Merkel seems to be the obvious choice for one of these top posts, though in light of the weakness of her ruling coalition partner, the Social Democrats, Ms. Merkel would be a fool to drop out of national policy making in 2009 to take over a leadership role in Europe when so much remains to be accomplished at home.

In a recent article in the Financial Times, EU Commissioner Margot Wallstroem has put forth a number of female candidates aside from Ms. Merkel: Tarja Halonen, president of Finland, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia 1999-2007, Mary Robinson, president of Ireland 1990-97, Dora Bakoyannis, foreign minister of Greece, Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, Margaret Beckett, former British foreign secretary, Emma Bonino, former Italian minister for trade and European Commissioner.

Arguably, though none of the posts in question are truly democratically representative offices, nominating at least one woman would serve as a better reflection of the Union's actual population (more than half of it are female) - the Spanish cabinet, which includes more women than men is a case in point.

Women - not least Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher - have proven they can be just as tenacious and ambitious as their male counterparts, providing it is the job they want. So perhaps Europe has to ask itself a different question altogether - and in part it is already doing it through the Lisbon Treaty: How can we make Europe's top jobs just as attractive as an American Presidency or a prime ministerial post. The answer: Add some real power to the mix, and you’ll have top candidates of both genders vying for the opportunity.

On May 29th the French Assemblée Nationale took a vote that might have profound impact on whether Turkey joins the European Union in a few years, or not. Making good on what his predecessor Jacques Chirac had promised all along, President Sarkozy and his ruling UMP party introduced a constitutional amendment, which would put future enlargements to include more populous countries - notably, of course, the extension of the Union to Turkey - to a popular vote in France. The Turkish government has been quick to criticize the move as discriminatory, as the amendment only demands a referendum for country's that in size would represent 5% of the EU total population. Thus, such a vote would only be needed for Turkey and Ukraine, the most contested of the current candidates. The move is surely to put a hostile spin on the membership negotiations, which will be led by France once that country takes over the rotating Presidency of the European Council on July 1. Already, tensions have been rising between the two sides, with plenty of finger-pointing as to which side is responsible for the slow pace of negotiations on the so-called chapters, which define the necessary reform steps toward accession.

A referendum in France against the accession could force the hand of the government (handing the responsibility over to the people might allow the then-government to save face toward their Head-of-State counterparts, while playing the popular democratic card) to vote ‘No’ in the Council. As the enlargement of the Union requires unanimity in the Council, and depending on the pro and con campaigns once Turkey's membership comes up for the vote, this could mean the end of the country's hopes toward becoming one of the largest and most populous in the Union.

It's June 1st and that leaves only a short twelve days for pro and con EU Treaty campaigners in Ireland. They have their work cut out for them, according to recent polls. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that “NO” campaigners are gaining ground, particularly among the conservative and the country's large farming population who see approval of the Lisbon Reform Treaty as relinquishing too much sovereignty to Brussels. According to the Times, the gap is narrowing (with Yes voters at 41 per cent and the No voters at 33 per cent), but primarily due to the fact that the Treaty as such is hardly a rallying ground on which to base an inspiring campaign. “Soporific” is apparently the adjective that comes to mind, according to the Times, when voters are asked to describe how they feel about the changes enshrined in the document. True, it is a far cry from the ‘People's Pamphlet’ the original Constitution set out to be, but the provisions for greater democratic participation of both European and national parliaments remain in place. But the ‘Yes’ campaign certainly has its work cut out for itself, while European policy makers are offering their assistance toward turning the vote in their favor. As all 27 Member States have to approve the Treaty - though most, given the debacle in France and the Netherlands three years ago, are resorting to parliamentary majorities - Ireland's vote has a particular significance because it could unhinge a project that was so precariously put back together after the last two referenda in 2003 sent the entire project back to the drawing board. This is the second time, after the Nice referendum that Ireland holds such sway over the fate of the Union as a whole. We will follow the last days of campaigning closely in the pages of this blog.

 The English language version of German weekly, DER SPIEGEL also rounds up the campaigners efforts in Ireland.