If they treat us like babies we may throw their EU pet toy out of pram

THEY cannot all be right. Last week, European heads of government rubber-stamped a new EU treaty almost identical to the constitution rejected two years ago by the French and the Dutch.

But having toasted their achievement with champagne, the 27 leaders began the task of selling the document in radically contradictory ways.

Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern was emphatic: whatever the “reasonably complex” treaty represents, it’s “not major change”. He attempted to depict the treaty, blithely, as just some minor revamping of the EU to make it “work a bit easier and better”.

This is a slightly odd line of argument when the streamlining measures — ‘double majority’ voting and a smaller commission — work in favour of the large states, not the smaller ones like Ireland. The Brits go even further: the treaty is 63,000 words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, they say.

The French and Dutch governments veer towards Dermot Ahern’s position, having finally come to terms with the fact that their electorates might have known precisely what they were doing back in 2005. (Previously, they pretended — like de Valera — that having looked inside their own hearts, they knew the voters had really meant to vote Yes, but voted No for the wrong reasons).

If the treaty really is this piffling, Bertie Ahern should be looking forward to next year’s referendum with some confidence. His hopes of a big EU job when he steps down from the Taoiseach’s role almost certainly rest upon Ireland delivering the ‘right’ result.

Why is it then that opinion appears to be so divided? Could it be, in small part, because some of our partners beg to differ with these small-beer interpretations? The Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has been particularly forthright: “It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”

The Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, described the constitution as “the capstone of a federal state”, while Italy’s Romano Prodi says it’s “a big change in the concept of nation states. It is a change of centuries of history”.

The very fact that each competing camp must claim victories on these occasions is, of itself, a defeat for those whose dream is still some ideal of European unity. Having given up on such delusions, most EU member governments now resort to low cunning. Jose Manuel Barroso, the powerful president of the EU Commission, mused recently that Europe is sometimes seen as a conspiracy by politicians against their people. It is difficult to think how the EU — where ministers make laws behind closed doors that national parliaments cannot overrule — could do more to give that impression if it wanted to.

Is it any wonder citizens have become cynical when our national politicians insist on telling us only what we want to hear? What is the ordinary voter to do? When confronted with one clique saying the treaty is no more than housekeeping, and another that it represents revolutionary change, the rational response is to read the document and discover the truth for oneself. But even if you had the time and inclination — poor you! — you’ll find it completely impenetrable.

There’s a reason for that, as the Belgian foreign minister has explained: “The aim of the constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

So much for a people’s Europe! Hardly anyone in Ireland believes that EU membership has been anything other than broadly positive. But you don’t need to be a Europhobic nationalist diehard to feel a little queasy about the machinations of the political class. If electorates have to be deceived into accepting this new treaty, could it be that there is more to it than just enabling things to “work a bit easier and better”?

As former French president and author of the original version of the treaty, Giscard d’Estaing, has pronounced with breathtaking arrogance: “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.”

His fellow federalist, Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker (who speaks for about as many people as the Lord Mayor of Cork) is equally shameless: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

What does this say about the politicians’ decade-long effort to warm up Europeans’ tepid enthusiasm for the EU, you might ask? Reworking the bulk of the grandly worded constitution into the form of a dull and legalistic treaty, thus avoiding popular votes — anywhere but here, of course — was Nicolas Sarkozy’s brainchild. Optimists hope that if the EU can put behind it the rancorous decade of squabbling over its internal workings, the club can turn to more important outward concerns: energy security, climate change, relations with Russia. And it’s true that if the electorate here does as they’re told, the EU is likely to function a little better with the new treaty than without it. It’s a pity, however, that with the whole of Europe watching as we grapple with the issues, the debate here will be so lopsided. Now that the Greens have gone mainstream, the only Dáil politicians opposing the treaty are likely to be from Sinn Féin and Independent benches.

WITH enemies like these, who needs friends?, Bertie Ahern must be thinking? The irony is that many on the far left campaigning for a ‘No’ vote next year should actually be welcoming one of the treaty’s major innovations, namely the creation of an EU president.

The holder will probably be a former head of government, elected by serving heads for a two-and-a-half-year term, who will, in one European leader’s words, “affirm our role as defenders of peace on the international scene”.

Isn’t this the counterweight to American ‘imperialism’ many have been yearning for? The other big new post is that of a European foreign minister with a considerable budget and a network of diplomatic missions at his or her disposal.

The EU has advanced, in the past, by creating new posts and institutions, and hoping that political unity catches up with those structures. Yet finding unity in foreign policy is harder, arguably, than anything that the EU has tried before. Memories of the Iraq invasion are still fresh and doubts remain about whether this is the moment that finally establishes the EU as a big diplomatic player.

Potentially, the more subversive aspects of the treaty will be the loss of vetoes in areas such as justice and energy policy, the supremacy of the charter of fundamental rights and the incorporation of a single legal personality for the EU.

Many will be entirely comfortable with such notions but, please, let’s stop pretending we are only dealing with a trifling bit of EU verbiage. It’s a constitution in all but name for a state called ‘Europe’ and goes far beyond a ‘tidying-up’ exercise. If politicians insist on infantilising citizens and insulting their intelligence, don’t be surprised if they behave like babies and throw their toys out of the pram.