I cannot congratulate the Irish

It is one thing to say that the Irish referendum result must be respected and quite another to pat the Irish on the back for their 'bravado'. I believe, like many others, that the Irish referendum dealt a serious blow to the European Union, although I am optimistic that the Union will eventually recover from it. Assuming no solution is found to the impasse created by the Irish referendum, Europe risks becoming more introverted and inert. In such a context, reopening the 'future of Europe' debate let alone developing an alternative "network" approach to EU is just wishful thinking. Lisbon's failure retards the emergence of a stronger, more united and democratic Europe with deep and widespread consequences.

In 2003, with Europe then divided over the US invasion of Iraq, Jürgen Habermas and the late Jacques Derrida argued that Europeans' self-perception of helplessness in shaping world events would enable them to overcome the difficult hurdle of constructing a stronger union and stronger common foreign policy.

They looked forward to a stronger Europe opposing Washington's hegemonic unilateralism in international affairs and in the UN. They called on Europe to use its influence to bring about the 'domestication of international relations' by projecting the EU model of how states can relate to one another under a form of governance that goes beyond the national state.

According to this vision, the power of persuasion is more important than the use of force, but force used for peace-making or peace-keeping purposes adds credibility to 'civilian power Europe'. This is not simply an alternative to the 'American' approach, itself often caricaturised in popular images, but the best way forward.

Persuasion works best if the EU is more successful, more united, more democratic and more effective in international affairs, in short a model of how states facing common challenges could overcome them together.

The European Constitution, admittedly defective, was a potential catalyst for the emergence of a stronger EU had it not been killed by the French and Dutch. The Lisbon Treaty, which salvaged the best part of that failed project, is now also in grave danger. Neither of these three demolition jobs are worthy of praise.

The Lisbon Treaty strengthens the powers of the directly elected European Parliament in the Union's law-making process. I disagree with those who downplay its importance. I also disagree with the opinion that having a Maltese commissioner, even in a less important post than that held at present, is incomparably more advantageous than having a sixth MEP. If that is the case then our 'euro-diplomats' and MEPs need not bother themselves excessively to 'excogitate' some legal way in which we could get the sixth EP seat even if Lisbon is scrapped. The roles of a Commissioner and of an MEP are incomparable.

With the failure of the Lisbon Treaty there is a real possibility that the Commission size is reduced in 2009 not in 2014.

The European Parliament is a unique institution in the world. No other region boasts a similar, directly elected chamber with law-making powers to approve transnational laws affecting 27 nation-states. It supplies democratic scrutiny, hence legitimacy, to an otherwise arcane intergovernmental process where governments decide in secret meetings.

The European Parliament is a model for the eventual emergence of a cosmopolitan democracy so vividly depicted by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Globalisation makes this task even more urgent.

The fact that voter turnout in European Parliamentary elections is low is worrisome. There are many reasons for this. One of these could be that intellectuals have daily failed it by not defending it and its democratic role in the EU.

The Lisbon Treaty strengthens citizens' rights, opens up the Council of Ministers to public scrutiny, enhances the role of national parliaments, introduces a solidarity clause, a mutual defence clause and provides for a smaller commission based on a fair and equal rotation among all the member states.

It is unlikely that the failure of the Lisbon Treaty leaves small states better off. Small states and their citizens gain from a stronger EU and from more democratic EU institutions. Small states benefit if the EU's 'civilian power' approach becomes 'a model to emulate' positively affecting international practice, rendering the international environment fairer and more peaceful. The death of the Lisbon Treaty jeopardises all this.

The European nation-state has adequately shown its impotence in securing its citizens: alone it cannot reverse global warming or develop alternative energy resources, it cannot protect its citizens from transboundary pollution, from illegal immigration, organised crime or terrorism, alone it cannot stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or pandemics, nor prise open markets for its producers or tap resources under someone else's control.

The EU institutions have permitted European states to pool their resources to confront common challenges and strengthen peace.

But world politics also needs efficient and democratic governing structures and the EU is clearly one such successful model. The botching of the Lisbon Treaty means that the EU misses the opportunity to play a leading role in world politics while casting doubt that it's much revered integration model does not work. For this reason I cannot congratulate the Irish.

Professor of European Studies and International Relations at the University of Malta and Chairman of the European Movement (Malta)