The outcome of the Irish referendum has triggered a healthy debate on what happens now.
Whereas there was never any doubt that the Eurosceptic among us would rejoice at the result, the reaction from those who had hitherto cohabited in the pro-European camp has been more varied, with some not-so-subtle nuances coming out to light for the first time.
These reactions tell me that we are finally moving on from a generic no-holds-barred support to EU membership to a more qualitative support of what kind of European unity we wish to see in the future.
On one end, there are those who expressed their dismay that such a small majority in Ireland, which itself constitutes one per cent of the EU population, could block an entire continent from moving on.
The first is that Ireland was perfectly entitled to hold a referendum (in fact, it is a constitutional requirement) and there is no question that the result must be respected as long as it stands.
The second is that Europe is built on two, not one, democracies. A democracy of people (represented in the European Parliament) but also a democracy of states (represented in the Council of Ministers), which is based on the principle of equality, if not perfect, among states. This means that the full integrity of both democracies must be preserved since they are the founding pillars of the construction of Europe.
On the other end, there are those in the pro-European camp who actually welcomed the Irish result on the basis that the Lisbon Treaty, which is a virtual copy of the EU Constitution, is not exactly what they have in mind for the future of Europe. They wish to see Europe develop in other ways, on less pronounced federal lines, on newer formulas, such as Malta's very own network proposal, or even to stay put with its current structure and stop its obsessive institutional navel-gazing once and for all.
This is a legitimate argument and certainly not less European than any other. But this approach too could be questioned.
For one thing, the fact that a very large majority of member states have already ratified the Lisbon Treaty (as they had already done with the Constitution) creates an overwhelming, if not unassailable, political momentum towards a Europe which is dressed in constitutional attire pretty much tailored on the Lisbon Treaty.
And even if the Irish referendum creates a legal obstacle to its entry into force, the not-so-hidden message in this political momentum is that those who want to go ahead should not be held back by the recalcitrant states. This should not be mistaken for any intention to ignore the Irish referendum - it cannot be if only because without Ireland's consent no treaty change can take place. But it does mean that, even without Ireland, the search will continue for a formula that would enable those countries that are willing to move on to be able to do so.
In this political positioning we must decide where we stand and we cannot afford to be ambiguous.
For another, Europe's essential institutional structure, with several federal elements, is already in place. So reinventing the entire edifice 50 years down the line may not be so realistic. This is why, to my mind, Malta's network proposal, laudable and innovative as it may have been, could never achieve sufficient support.
I myself belong to that segment of the pro-European camp whose nuance favour a support for the compromises reached in the EU Constitution and in the Lisbon Treaty. Not because they are perfect - over the past eight years I have written profusely on the pros and cons of these documents - but because they are the best compromise that could be reached and, by definition, a compromise is based on a give-and-take.
So the question is not whether Lisbon is perfect but whether it is good enough to live with.
Clearly, our government, which negotiated on our behalf, must have thought so because it twice signed the treaties and twice ratified them with the unanimous, if uninspiring, backing of our national Parliament. As it should have because, on balance, the compromise leads to a stronger Europe, which is in our national interest. As a small state we have a vested interest in a stronger Europe. We need Europe to help us address challenges and achieve objectives that we cannot on our own.
So by ratifying Lisbon we have already made the strategic decision to support a certain type of Europe.
Moreover, we have also made another strategic choice to be part of the inner core of European unity as our entry into the euro and Schengen zones demonstrates.
We are now frontrunners, not just followers.
We should not turn back.
Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu .
Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.