The ‘no’-voters won the day in the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty with a share of 53.4%. A Pyrrhic victory? Maybe, but after the French and Dutch ‘No’s’, it surely adds a new chapter to the difficult revision process of the EC and EU Treaties over the past decade. The Lisbon Treaty was to revive the institutional reconstruction of the European Union which came to a standstill with the abduction of the European Constitution in 2005. Reconstruction is highly necessary because the current decision-making models cannot cope with the growth from 15 to 27 Member States.

The practical consequence of the Irish ‘no’ may well be detrimental to the attainment of a stronger democratic legitimacy. Contrary to what its opponents may claim, the Lisbon Treaty was designed to increase the involvement of European citizens. Saying no to the treaty thus propagates the current status quo, which is actually considered highly unsatisfactory by these ‘no-voters’.

The Lisbon Treaty

If or when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it will not replace the current Treaties of the European Union and the European Communities. It only amends the existing legislative framework of these Treaties. This is different from the previously proposed European Constitution which was rejected by the French and Dutch referenda three years ago. The European Constitution had the effect of completely replacing the existing legal framework by a wholly new structure. Although the Lisbon treaty is in this sense less ambitious, it nevertheless contains a number of material changes also proposed under the European Constitution.

In general, it is considered that the Lisbon Treaty will provide the European Union with a legal framework equipped for enlargement and future challenges serving citizens' demands. Specifically, the changes can be divided in four categories:

Efficiency: The Lisbon Treaty introduces simplified working methods and voting rules. This enables the European Union to work more efficiently with its 27 (and in the future even more) Member States.

Democracy and transparency: The Lisbon Treaty strengthens the role of both the European Parliament and the national parliaments. In addition, citizens get better opportunities to get their opinion heard and it should be clearer who does what at the European and the national level.

Global influence: The European Union’s external affairs will be further developed and streamlined by the Lisbon Treaty. Nevertheless, the Lisbon Treaty also aims to respect the particular interests of the Member States in Foreign Affairs.

Fundamental rights and solidarity: The Lisbon Treaty introduces some new principles. These are democratic values, human rights and the principle of solidarity. Based on these principles, Europe should protect its citizens and further promote these cornerstones of European society.

The Irish no

This is not the first time that the Irish people have voted ‘no’ on a European treaty. In 2001, the Nice Treaty was initially rejected, resulting in an institutional crisis. In a second referendum, 16 months later, Ireland finally accepted the Treaty and opened the door for enlargement of the European Union.

Now, seven years later, it feels like déjà vu: an Irish no and an institutional crisis which will not be easily solved. Paradoxically, the Irish would seem to have received considerable benefit from becoming a member of the European Union. As the poorest country of the European Communities in 1973, Ireland received substantial support from Brussels. Nowadays it is considered one of the richest Member States with a GDP at 146 percent of the European Union’s average. This success is undeniably realised in part because of the European Union’s support.

It is hard to identify the real reasons that there are so many citizens in Ireland dissatisfied with the European Union. Most political specialists point at fears among people of losing Irish neutrality, nationality, and/or sovereignty. Moreover, cultural motivations – for example the view on abortion – have fed criticism regarding certain EU policies. Many have probably voted with their hearts and not with their heads.

Consequences

It is not easy to predict the consequences of the Irish ‘no’. Previous European treaty failures show there are no hard and fast rules on what should now be done in order to move forward again. Much will depend on the political climate. The Irish are of the opinion that, as the Lisbon Treaty needs to be ratified by all 27 Member States before it can enter into force, no Treaty can enter into force without the Irish agreeing to it. In legal terms, this appears to be a clear-cut view of the rules. However, since Ireland is the only country that has voted against the Lisbon Treaty – and the only country to decide by means of a referendum – the situation in political terms may be far less clear-cut.

The Franco-German tandem is in favour of going ahead with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the other Member States, despite the Irish ‘no’. France, which takes over the European Presidency in July, is working on a ‘legal arrangement’ to cope with the Irish rejection. It is expected that further plans will be tabled at the October/December meeting of European leaders. In the meantime, France and Germany have declared that there can be no further enlargement of the European Union until the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. This would directly impact the candidature of Croatia, which is now envisaged to join the European Union in late 2009, early 2010.

What’s next?

Notwithstanding this uncertainty, Europe will not come to a standstill. The current Treaties of the European Union and the European Communities remain in force and the institutions will continue their policies. However, decision making will go on at a slow pace due to an institutional system that is not fit for the current size of the European Union. It may be with some necessary legal and political arrangements, but it is without question that the Lisbon Treaty will take effect in the near future – with or without Ireland.