EU at 50

Welcome, Mr. President, to one of the toughest jobs in global politics. You had a killer agenda planned, including the conclusion of an European pact on immigration and asylum, the creation of a functional Mediterranean Union (with the EU-Med Summit in two weeks’ time) and robust responses to the looming natural resource shortage. Already, you had prepared answers to a number of key questions - including the often controversial immigration pact - to ensure a smooth ratification that would allow for the spotlight to shine brightly on you and your achievements. You hoped that your results-based leadership of the Union would impress your ever-critical citizens at home, who bemoan the lack of progress on key domestic reforms. And indeed, as  a recent paper by the Bertelsmann Foundation underlines, Europe would have had a few things to look forward to, with respect to your approach to crucial foreign policy questions.

But now? Now that the Lisbon Reform Treaty lies all but in tatters? Now could really be your time to shine, M. le President. Instead,  you are already isolating and rebuking people left and right, be it the Commission President, the Union’s trade Commissioner or the Czech President. What a way to show everyone who’s boss..

How will the Irish ‘No’ affect your turn at the helm of the Union? Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform argues that you’ll have to listen to Irish concerns and are likely to focus on negotiating exemptions for the green island. But looking ahead to all the other countries now wavering in their support for the Treaty, will it be enough? And more importantly, perhaps for you - will it make you look good? Will you still be talking to the people that matter a few months down the line? We’ll be watching…

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 . . . 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.”

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 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 Wallström 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.

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.