Treating a Treaty

Some say I am not a normal person. Maybe, they are right.
I spent the last weekend in an amazing seaside place. The picture on the right, although not so relevant in the first glimpse with the content of this post, was taken there. It was the "peak" moment; the one that I liked the most during those days. What I liked the least was to get to know (from the late arriving newspapers) that the Irish people - precisely, 53,1% of the population entitled to voting - voted "NO" for the Treaty of Lisbon. "Why do you care" was the question of many. Rightly wondered. Ireland is so far anyway.

It's been a while since I posted a link to the official web site of the Treaty of Lisbon. I can not not know. Especially for something that is going to affect my life so deeply in the years to come. The same I thought for the kind visitors of this blog. To be honest, I haven't read the 388 pages of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty. Very few have, even less understood. I am reading a comment by an Irish MEP "Of the three things that led to the NO result, one was that the Irish Prime Minister hasn't read the Treaty". At the same time, I consider my self quite informed: I have followed on TV the procedures of the Greek Parliament and the dedicated Commission about the Treaty, I have visited the web site and wandered and pondered for hours, read newspapers and more.

And I am wondering, what was the "NO" vote for?

• Was it for the adherence of the EU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the explicit reference that it "shall have the same legal value as the Treaties" (9/5/2008, C 115/19)?

• Was it for the so called European Citizens' Initiative "whereby one million citizens, from any number of member countries, will be able to ask the Commission to present a proposal in any of the EU's areas of responsibility"?

• Was it for the reduction of the Commissioners' number to the 2/3 of the number of Member States, simply because there aren't tasks for everyone (something that at the same time means less money for the payments and more efficiency)?

• Was it because the European Parliament, the only EU institution that is directly elected by the citizens will have advanced powers and a strengthened voice?

• Was it because the National Parliaments will have an improved role with regards to European Law and decision making?

• Was it because of the President of the European Council (falsely, mistakenly, impromptu and sometimes provocatively named by the media "The President of Europe")? Was it because of the High representative for foreign and security policy? The explicit reference to "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change" (9/5/2008, C 115/132).

What was it for?

I don't personally think that the NO vote was related to any of the key points above. Reading around I get to know that the people of Ireland voted what they vote having in mind issues such as abortion, European Army, taxation etc. Whatever they voted for, the mandate should be respected. A democratic society can not do otherwise, although it is disputable how much democracy exists without sufficient information and in the case of the Irish referendum (or the referendums wherever they would have taken place) information was insufficient, blurred, not pursued and sometimes (modestly), misleading.

To my belief, a big amount of information (with all the adjectives seen above) was transmitted by people, entities, institutions, collectivities and associations that have little or no faith to European integration, so "their problem" is not the Treaty of Lisbon but it would have been any kind of treaty, decision or act that aims at changing something that they don't favor anyway. As well, like anything new in the political life, it inevitably suffered opportunistic attitudes.

The Treaty of Lisbon is not a magic stick that will change the world at once. It is not the perfect treaty. There is space for improvement. There might be mistakes, omissions and unclarity. It won't be the device that all alone will respond to "hot" issues such as unemployment, oil prices, environmental catastrophe, high food prices etc. But certainly, the NO vote will not give, suggest, propose solutions to the problems that the Treaty was designed to deal with and resolve.

The European Council is now taking place in Brussels (19 - 20/06/2008) and the Treaty is on the top of the Agenda.

I personally stay tuned.

S.