The "no" side brought together an unlikely assortment of campaigners notably including Libertas, a slick lobby group run by businessman Declan Ganley who is now considering taking the anti-Lisbon message to mainland Europe.

...

In an interview hours after the result was announced, Ganley was asked whether he would now move into politics full-time following the success of the campaign which he spearheaded.

"I'm not ducking the question, I genuinely don't know the answer so I wouldn't rule it in and I wouldn't rule it out," he told national broadcaster RTE on Saturday in a high-spirited appearance.

Whether or not he makes the leap into politics full-time, a Libertas spokesman said that Ganley was set to visit Europe "and see if he can build some sort of pan-European organisation", without giving further details.

Get them to change their mind? And hold another referendum? Sure. This is the new face of democracy. As in the Netherlands and France in 2005. As in Denmark in 2000. The policy is that if Brussels fails by democratic standards, then it seeks other means to pursue its policy - a second vote, a legal solution... and when all else fails, forceful implementation.

Another blatant example where European policymakers are turning international law into a mockery is Kosovo. Brussels is intent on replacing the United Nations mission in Kosovo with EULEX without the prior approval of the UN Security Council. Talk about a flagrant breach of international law! Do our policymakers in Brussels want to do away with the United Nations? Do they think that the UN is about as worthless as the League of Nations? It would seem so.

If Europe were so democratic, why not organise referendums throughout the 25 countries to wee what the people want? Brussels lacks democratic... and indeed legal credentials to rule. Nobody in the European Commission has even been elected!

Coming back to the Irish referendum: the people voted NO. The will of the people needs to be respected, which means Ireland should now opt out of the next phase of European political integration. An the same opportunity should be given to te remaining 400 million Europeans.

Now wouldn't that be a real test of democracy?

What will happen with regard to the Irish would only become clear after the next European summit. And as I tried to indicate in the introduction to this roundup on my own blog, offering suggestions is all fine, but no one who matters is going to listen to them.

Two peripheral remarks:

Buyer's remorse is overrated folk wisdom psychology. The general trend is that people become happier about their decision once they have made it. I've seen this after the Dutch referendum. Sentiment against the 'Constitution' hardened, also because the result was a resounding rather than a narrow defeat. I predict the same for Ireland.

The disconnect between politicians and the public means that it is rather difficult to even find out why the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The biggest mistake right now would be to negotiate with the political parties who campaigned for the 'no'. They do not deliver anymore. As much as we might dislike it, the American and Irish financial backers of the 'no' campaign and Rupert Murdoch are more relevant partners. Ultimately, though, even their sway is limited. What would be needed is a direct dialogue with the citizens, which politicians don't have any clue about (neither do I, no idea how to organise something like that). See further:

Centre for European Politics - CEP Blog - Ireland's No to Lisbon: What are the causes?

Three points need to be made to explain this. The first is nothing to do with the EU as such. Political dealignment is the process, which since the 1970s, has led to voters becoming more disloyal and more "available" on the electoral market for new political forces. Citizens are less involved directly in party politics. Political parties have lost their mass memberships, as well as becoming centralised and professionalised. All of this means that in referendums, citizens are more likely to abstain and less likely loyally to follow cues from "trusted" party leaders about how to vote. Gratitude to the EU for all it has done for Ireland to be able to escape from the Third World in the 1970s is therefore not sufficient.

In fact, (though I would appreciate a reference for this), Frank Schnittger elaborated

I wrote them down as I was listening to debate and vox pops on the RTE radio.  It's not a particularly scientific sample, and no doubt more reasons will emerge.

I think there are a number of dangers and traps which we must avoid in this debate:

1. The campaign is over.  The fact that (in my opinion) the wrong side won (for some very bad reasons) is neither here nor there.  A new political reality has been created and we can't simply fix a few things and go back to the old reality.

2.  Politics is an emotional as well as a rational process.  The EU hasn't been engaging at an emotional level for quite some time, and the Irish political establishment has yet to wake up to the new emotional realities of the post Celtic Tiger era.  A very painful readjustment is taking place (for some) and others are sailing on in sublime ignorance and indifference.  This will take some time to resolve (within Ireland) and we can expect to see a lively campaign for the EP Parliament next year.

3.  Irish people won't be bullied.  If other National leaders threaten them with consequences or seek to carry on without Ireland they will simply be told to f*** off and the situation will become entrenched.

4.  Even if we fixed a few things - e.g. no loss of EU Commissioners, opt outs on Military and Security matters, some words around employment and energy sustainability etc - there is no guarantee a second referendum would succeed.  Many people are still sore about Nice being voted on a second time, and the relatively high poll this time removes the argument that the poll was unrepresentative.

5.  Time is a great healer.  Ireland and the EU are in for a rough couple of years and a popular recognition will soon grow that something must be done to address the issues of Globalisation, Energy sustainability, food sustainability, financial stability etc.  Quite what that "something" will be is not clear right now.  It could just be a re-packaged and re-branded Lisbon Treaty with a lot more verbiage on energy, employment, food security, environmental conservation, social inclusion etc., but my sense is that a more radical approach is needed:  Stop trying to consolidate complex Treaties into one.  Strip out all the stuff that has already been agreed and which doesn't need a new Treaty.  Produce one clear statement of what NEW measures are needed and why - in a new era with a much enlarged EU and much greater global challenges facing us all collectively which we cannot successfully address on our own.

Sometimes how you do it is as important, if not more important than what you do.  The failure of the Lisbon referendum sets us a real test.  If we respond in an authoritarian, bullying or blustering way, the EU project will die in more countries than one.  The EU has to take this negative result on the chin and come up with a better proposal, and the manner in which this proposal is arrived at is as important as what it eventually includes.

My suggestion is that the EP elected in 2009 should be specifically tasked with coming up with the new proposal - not the EU Council or Commission - and that that should be explicit at the time of the election.  Essentially it will double as a constitutional assembly charged with coming up with a new constitution. It will then at least have a more direct legitimacy.

My guess is that, if sold in the right way, the Irish electorate would actually be more supportive of more radical proposals rather than less.  The proposals need to capture the public imagination and represent a more comprehensive response to the global challenges facing us.

The murky elements behind the NO campaign may just have won a Pyhrric victory.  What comes after Lisbon could be much more radical indeed.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

I suppose we could just invite them to rejoin the UK, though. That would be certainly more satisfying...

 

Mais c'est un scandâââle!!