The Lisbon Treaty is dead; long live the Lisbon Treaty!

At the recent summit of EU heads, the Irish Prime Minister asked for and was given more time to respond to the Irish 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty. The European Commission president appeared torn between encouraging members to continue with the ratification and acknowledging the need for reflection.

Our Prime Minister stressed that the Irish vote has to be respected and that he will do his utmost to help the EU to get out of this impasse. This appeared to me to be in sharp contrast to Malta's position in 2005, when its then Foreign Minister urged the EU, after the thumbs down given to the now extinct constitutional treaty by both the French and the Dutch, not to lose focus on the treaty.

The Foreign Minister went on to urge the EU leaders to be "sharp and crisp" in their reaction and in spite of the setback, he recommended that the constitutional treaty should not be substituted. We know of course what happened. Three years later the new Lisbon Treaty suffered the same fate at the hands of the people of the only member state that was obliged by its Constitution to call a referendum on the treaty before ratification.

Surprisingly, Malta's reasonable and pragmatic reaction to the latest constitutional crisis was not like the general reaction of others at the summit. France, Germany and others gave the impression that Ireland, consisting of only a few million people, should not dictate to 500 million Europeans.

Curiously, it is now the French, who a few years ago decisively stopped the earlier treaty dead in its tracks, who are now one of the leading proponents to go ahead as planned. This is possibly because they do not want to ruin their plans for the EU Presidency - by having to tackle the latest constitutional crisis rather than going full speed ahead with the Union of the Mediterranean and other planned initiatives.

The attitude of some to go ahead with the ratification as if the Irish vote never happened or can be ignored is baffling to say the least. Moreover, the strong arm tactics of the big against the small are more than a subtle hint. In spite of the Irish vote, the EU summit agreed that the ratification process should continue and that the Irish issue should be taken up again in October.

The pledge to the summit by the British Prime Minister to proceed quickly with ratification is being challenged in the English courts. In addition, a poll reported by Euronews at the conclusion of the summit showed that only 15 per cent of those polled agreed that the ratification by the British government should continue.

On the local front, a timesofmalta.com poll asking whether people would vote against or in favour of the Lisbon Treaty if they were given the chance, produced an interesting, if not incredible result. Over 47 per cent said that they would have voted against the treaty and only around 40 per cent said would have voted in favour.

Admittedly, unlike the Irish vote, these two polls were not scientific and the samples were small. But irrespective of this, both should offer food for thought if not outright reason for concern to both the British and Maltese governments.

The first question that comes to mind as far as Malta is concerned is whether the unanimous ratification in Parliament of the treaty reflects the views of the people. If yes, how can one explain why a considerable number of people in a poll would not have agreed with the ratification? If no, one still wonders how such a result was reflected in Parliament. It would be too easy to justify this by stating that opinions could have changed in Malta since the ratification was approved by Parliament.

The next President of the Council of the EU made two significant statements after the summit. First, he said, supported by Germany, that no new members would be admitted before the treaty becomes effective and, second, that the treaty cannot be amended.

Therefore what might happen between now and October to put the whole matter of the Lisbon Treaty back on track? The easiest way forward is to stop blaming one or the other for the Irish result and try to convince the Irish to hold another referendum at the appropriate time. In the meantime, their concerns should be identified and analysed with a view to considering concessions that do not require amendments to the treaty. This is easier said than done.

The problems with the treaty do not appear to be restricted to the Irish. There appears to be much wider opposition, if not to the treaty itself, to the way governments have agreed to push for the ratification with the minimum of consultation. The earlier rejection by the French and the Dutch should have been a lesson and consultation on the Lisbon Treaty should have been more widespread, with more grassroots involvement, leading to 'feeling of ownership by the people'. The continuation of the ratification process that has the support of governments but not of the people who elected these governments is bound to fail. Memories should never be too short.

If the Irish are not convinced to hold another referendum or if they vote 'no' again or if some other unexpected problem crops up, there may be no other option but to introduce the necessary changes to the treaty to satisfy everyone, large and small. But with the attitude in the recent summit, this also is easier said than done. Stay tuned.