Editorial | Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Time to reach a compromise

The Irish no vote carries major fall-out consequences to Europe, which may have been also underrated by Barroso’s knee-jerk reaction affirming that the European train will carry on uninterrupted. This smug comment dents European credentials and can only harden the no vote, which albeit mistaken, is a reflection of citizens’ views on the EU’s current direction. The ‘no’ argument is motivated by misgivings on the unelected president and foreign minister of Europe, the halving of islands voting rights while doubling Germany’s and the opening of the door to tax harmonisation. Looking at the details it also amounts too much more control on individual members’ internal affairs. These are no small matters and it is useless to simply take the attitude that three million Irish have plunged the European union block of 500 million into chaos simply by their no vote.
Europe should now look into the legitimate concerns. The Irish should certainly not be rubbished but rather understood, after all it was Monet himself who had stated that Europe will develop as a result of crisis and differences of opinion. Any attempt to go ahead without the Irish (as suggested by the Italian President) should be resisted at all costs. It is very easy for the proponents of the treaty to remind us all that Ireland benefited immensely from the largesse in funding from Europe and to accuse them of being ungrateful. Europe has after all helped Ireland progress from the sick man of Europe into its most prosperous member.
Irish influence in Europe is now expected to wane, as no doubt will its capacity to convince its partners that this was simply a hiccup. More so now that there is a sense of deja vu after Irish voters initially rejected the Nice treaty seven years ago before the result was overturned in a second poll. The net result is that Europe has had its credibility impacted, along with its future. Life cannot simply go on as if nothing happened. However, it is inconceivable that one simply goes back to the drawing board after years of difficult negotiations. So what is the way forward? Should the ratification process just carry on, as suggested by the French European minister? Or are we to listen to the Czech president Klaus, stating that the Lisbon treaty project has ended with the decision of the Irish people? This newspaper believes that the realistic approach by the Czech President is fully in synch with the sentiment of the citizens of Europe, however the treaty simply cannot be buried after years of negotiations. Consequently, if politics is to be the art of the possible, the way forward must be a happy compromise. The misgivings of the Irish must be given weight and where justifiable they must be actioned. At the heart of the matter is the feeling that Europe is simply too distanced from the average citizen, often appearing as an exclusive club where parliamentarians and functionaries lead a very comfortable life, oblivious to the concerns of the average citizen. The more awareness campaigns Europe carries out the more distant the citizen appears, especially as the union seems dominated by a German-French axis leaving little influence to the smaller countries.
Closer to home, this Irish rejection brings into doubt whether our sixth seat is still on the cards, carrying serious implications for a louder Maltese voice in the European parliament. This of relevance in view of our smallness, as it also opens the possibility for the third party in Malta to have a representation in Europe. This too could help pave the way for a wider representation of the Maltese electorate.
Sending Europe back to the drawing board effectively means opening up all the provisions of concern. The tendency to bypass electibility in certain key positions is found offensive as it may demean the basis of European democracy.
If the commission yields so much clout and power, why is it not directly elected? Why is power vested in individuals who have simply been hand picked by their governments? Equally debatable is how can you have a president of Europe or a European foreign minister and not submit his name to a popular plebiscite, especially since these two officials will effectively be the public face of Europe?
A compromise may well be to submit high posts to popular approval so that one can really have a government for the people and by the people. Many of the changes amounted to a subtle way of creating a federal state - where power would slowly but surely be transferred to the centre and away from the national governments. If this is the tendency, then there is more reason for all appointments to have the seal of approval by the people.
The protests of the Irish must be heard just as the treaty must not be abandoned. The way forward is to find a compromise that safeguards Irish fears and allows the treaty to come into operation. This calls for statesmanship.