The people of Ireland, a country which has benefited enormously from its European Union membership, and whose political parties, except Sinn Fein, have supported the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, have decided to reject the treaty. Admittedly, most of those who voted for or against had not read the treaty at all.

All the other 26 EU member states, including Malta, have decided not to hold a referendum on the treaty. There is no doubt that this position was influenced by the earlier rejection of the EU Constitution by France and the Netherlands in a referendum.

Is this the end of the story? Not likely.

The governments of the EU member states, the European Parliament, the EU Commission, and the European political leaders meeting in their regular summits, should pause for reflection, and honestly assess why they are projecting themselves as leaders without followers. When I was ambassador in Madrid, and the debate of widening and/or deepening the EU was at its peak, I asked a Spanish politician whether it was wise for then Commission President Jacques Delors, backed by France and Germany, to put so much pressure to advocate the cause for what amounted to a federation.

I pointed out that this approach was missing a vital dimension that the fathers of the European Community had laid down in the pursuit of their ambition. This was the need for consolidation and acceptance of one step by the public before advancing to the next. I added that the person who pursues his vision with eloquence, energy and courage is not a good leader if at the moment of truth he finds that he has lost contact with his would-be followers.

The setbacks of the EU Constitution, and its watered-down version in the Lisbon Treaty should be a clarion call for retrenchment, and an opportunity not to be missed to make an honest assessment of what the public wants.

This may not tally with what Europe really needs to safeguard and improve living standards, political, economic and social well-being, as well as an effective force in international forums. However, this cannot be effectively countered through clever manipulation or subtle imposition. It requires a policy of information and education backed by a moral authority which, regrettably, the bureaucracy of the Union, including the European Parliament, is losing fast.

The refusal of the EU auditors to approve, on a systematic basis, the way the Union is administering its funds, and the reluctance of most MEPs to be transparent when it comes to the money they claim from funds coming from taxpayers, is hardly conducive to persuade the public to give more power to Brussels.

Unfortunately, this latest setback may mean that Malta will not be given the sixth seat in the European Parliament in time for the next election. I hope that our government and MEPs will fight for this seat with dignity but not impetuosity. When I hear voices that one single member state should not be allowed to stop an agreement which all the other states endorse, my mind goes to the CSCE and Malta's stand, especially in Madrid in 1983.

While I tend to agree, that is not the same as saying that the solution is straightforward. Let those whose role it is to lead persuade others through example. Let us seek practical solutions rather than convoluted documents that cannot be easily explained to those who have to approve them.