Lisbon fallout overstated
After all, the Danes voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992, we turned down the Nice Treaty in 2001, and the French and Dutch rejected Lisbon’s predecessor, the European Union constitution, in 2005.
French Minister for European Affairs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, had said before the referendum that if the Irish voted no, France, as incoming EU presidency holder, would “go back to the point of departure… the sound base that allows us to govern Europe effectively.”
And last week, EU decisions on agriculture continued as normal, with the Commission allowing cereal imports free of duties to continue until July, 2009, and eliminating the vast majority of licence obligations for imports and exports in the agricultural sector.
Things went as usual, despite the “uncertainty” which Taoiseach Brian Cowen said we faced after the no-vote; Labour leader Eamonn Gilmore said Lisbon had triggered our biggest diplomatic challenge since the Second World War.
EU leaders last week avoided a row with Ireland, promising to “respect” the outcome of the referendum here — even if finding a way round it will require major diplomacy. But there are no legal nor moral grounds for Ireland to be excluded from the EU — which some have postulated as a consequence of Irish voters exercising their democratic rights.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen has been given four months to come up with a plan.
A lot could happen in that time — for example, the Lisbon spotlight may shift to the remaining seven countries that are continuing ratification.
Meanwhile, the EU-27 can function well; academic studies have shown that the enlarged EU has worked more efficiently than ever. Within the continuing decision-making, Ireland must be forthright and unapologetic in representing the agriculture and food sector, for which many important decisions will be made in Brussels in the coming months.
World trade deals are still on the table, albeit only barely, as efforts to advance negotiations for a July meeting of trade ministers (of all 152 World Trade Organisation members) are faltering. Too many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America already find they can’t buy enough food to feed their people, without leaving themselves at the mercy of free trade. And Barack Obama’s strong anti-free trade stance puts the most powerful WTO negotiator, the US, offside.
It’s doubtful if enough progress can be made for an EU summit to be asked to rule on WTO proposals, but if that materialises, note should be taken of the Belgian Prime Minister’s pledge to his farmers last week not to allow damaging world trade concessions on agriculture.
Irish negotiators and stakeholders must also keep a close eye on the CAP Health Check proposals.
Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has revealed that flattening single payment entitlements could involve higher entitlements from grassland-based farming, and converting cropland to pasture could become eligible for extra funding.
But this could be funded only by taking more out of single payments. Irish farmers shouldn’t be diverted from these important issues by the Lisbon Treaty hold-up.
Careful examination of the Health Check proposals and briefing of our negotiators is necessary to prevent the EU from turning a health check into yet another reform.
