Editorial

Ireland alone, of the 27 members of the European Union, was committed, constitutionally, to hold a referendum on the European Treaty. An attempt by the British Conservative Party to force a referendum on the issue by taking the matter to the House of Lords was defeated when Liberal peers voted with the government to reject the move.

It will be remembered that, in a similar exercise in 2001, Irish voters said no to the Nice Treaty (the Danes had done the same to Maastricht). In the case of Ireland, which had benefited so enormously from its EU membership, its no, back then, was a selfish and self regarding decision in the context of an enlargement process many countries considered to be essential to Europe's development and reunion.

Why selfish? Nice was essential for that enlargement. Enlargement was essential for eastern European countries, Malta and Cyprus. In a subsequent referendum the Irish came on board.

Somewhat portentously it was reported by the Daily Telegraph yesterday that the fate of the Lisbon Treaty rested on the outcome of the Irish referendum.

The argument can be made, however, that in practical terms, an Irish no, based on a turnout of under 50 per cent of the Irish electorate, or fewer than one million voters out of an electorate of more than two and a half million, will make little or no difference to the substance of the treaty. But the Irish have made sure that their grievances will be noted and opt-out clauses on certain matters will be framed to accommodate Irish fears. The rest of Europe can react by shrugging off the set-back, even as it wrings its hands, and move on. Yet, this is a cynical and cavalier attitude to adopt even if it was unlikely that, after years of negotiations, Ireland's no vote would stop the treaty in its tracks. Still, its critics will respond by saying so much for Brussels listening to the grass roots.

Indeed, the President of the European Commission had publicly declared that there would be a price to pay, without quite specifying whether it would be paid by Ireland or the EU, if Ireland voted against. Ireland must wait and see; so must the remainder of the club, if only to make sure that the freedom of the Irish voter, legitimately to vote against the treaty, does not fall foul of collective bitchiness.

It remains to be remarked that by indicating there was no Plan B if the no vote won, Josè Manuel Barrosso was not only exerting pressure on Irish voters. He was implying, as he did again yesterday, that yes or no, ways and means would be found to get round the Irish result and it would be business as usual in Brussels. There is an arrogance to this sort of approach that bodes ill for relationships between Brussels and its peripheries.

The Maltese people cannot dismiss what is an ugly characteristic as something unfortunate. They should also be asking whether greater centralisation of authority will not, eventually, make a mockery of the concept they favoured so much after their experience of the Mintoff regime, that is, subsidiarity. Unwarranted noises from the Council of Europe or other fora within the EU's institutions over the grave subject of abortion, have already had to be addressed. The Maltese should make it clear they are exactly that: unwarranted.