It's a hard life in the tranzi world

The bizarre world of the United Nations never fails to entertain.

Marching us up to the top of the hill …

After all the drama of the last seven days, this current European Council meeting – or "summit" as most of the hacks insist on calling it - is turning out to be one of the most phenomenal anti-climaxes of all time.

Apart from Brown getting a beaming grin from el presidente Barroso (left) and an adoring glance from Frau Merkel (below right), there is little of interest coming from it apart from a commitment to do absolutely nothing about Ireland (openly) until October.

The original "Plan B" – or is it C? – has proved to risky in the high intensity spotlight of media scrutiny and has been temporarily set aside. But the "colleagues" are still intent on ensuring that remaining states apart from Ireland complete their ratification. Then, at the October European Council, held under the French presidency, they will await a new proposal from the luckless Cowen.

At that meeting he is expected to come up with a new plan for a referendum, with assurances this time that he is going to win it. Expect a revised question that, effectively, links a "no" vote with the threat of being expelled for the EU – or some such. Dates as early as November are being suggested, with March being the most commonly touted.

That said, The Irish Times has Ireland’s minister for foreign affairs, Micheal Martin, denying that there will be "solutions by October" – although he and his boss will be "exploring options and ideas." You can certainly bet on that.

Killing the idea of any confrontation, Martin confided in the media that he did not expect to get a hard time from his EU colleagues. "There is no question of us getting it in the neck; there never has been," he said, adding that there was an appreciation of the real politique of the position by our European partners. "Europe has been through things like this in the past," he declared.

The great plan, according to Martin – roughly the equivalent of turning water into wine - is to ensure that that the decision of the Irish people is "respected" while "equally respecting the right of the other member states to reach their own position on the treaty."

When the "colleagues" have finished respecting each other's positions, and sucking up to the loathesome Gordon, they will get down to the serious business of agreeing the pre-drafted Council communiqué. Then they will all toddle off home later today feeling mightily pleased with themselves. No one else will be any the wiser.

So the "colleagues" have marched us up to the top of the hill, and are now marching us down again.

COMMENT THREAD

At sixes and sevens

According to EUBusiness, not an organization that can be accused of euroscepticism, not even in one's wildest dreams (the one in which both David Cameron and Gordon Brown are closet sceptics) the forthcoming European Council may well be a little rocky.

Soaring fuel and food prices posed a stiff challenge to EU leaders gathered for a summit in Brussels on Thursday, amid deep divisions over how to respond to growing calls for action.

Following Irish voters' rejection of the European Union's Lisbon Treaty last week, EU leaders are eager to demonstrate that the bloc can tackle the toughest issues and has not slumped back into a period of painful navel-gazing.

Why break the habit of a lifetime, say I, and stop navel-gazing?

The problem is that there are as many solutions to the problem of rocketing fuel prices as there are countries. Tax cuts or tax rises? Less regulation or more? EU-wide action or by individual member states? Short-term measures (always a good idea if you are a politician) or long-term but possibly painful solutions? New research, perhaps, but into what and with what results?

It will all add up to an entertaining couple of days, is my opinion.

Irish "no" vote reduced to a "glitch"

Claims that Gordon Brown was ever a "eurosceptic" must surely now have died. With the constitutional treaty having received royal assent this morning, the man is being hailed by the "colleagues" as the hero of the hour for keeping the treaty alive.

There can be no doubt that, had Brown decided to allow suspension of the treaty, it would have been on the way to its coffin, whereas he has simply banged another nail in the coffin of our parliamentary democracy.

No wonder EU leaders and senior officials are today "lavishing praise" on our provincial governor, with Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the EU parliament, chortling that the EU Treaty was "certainly not" dead following the Lords vote yesterday.

Barroso is joining in, declaring: "I would like to congratulate the United Kingdom on the approval of the Treaty," thanking: "… the government and Parliament for the constant support for the new Treaty during the negotiation and ratification process."

Janez Jansa, Slovenia's prime minister adds: "Another endorsement of the treaty proves that it is still a living document .This confirmation gives the EU a strong impetus and motivation for the completion of ratification procedures in the rest of the member states."

And then there is Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, a senior Spanish MEP who happily observes that, "The British vote reduces the Irish no vote to a glitch." I am sure the Irish will be pleased to hear that.

COMMENT THREAD

More on those Czechs

We have received the text of an interview President Vaclav Klaus gave to the Czech daily Lidove Novíni on Tuesday, June 17, which two days before that had analyzed the situation in the Czech government as far as the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty was concerned and came to the conclusion that there was a split between the more cautious and "responsible" Prime Minister Topolanek and the less responsible (i.e. more outspoken) President.

This situation can result in a split of the senior ruling party. The question is whether Topolanek's ODS or Klaus's party will survive, Safarikova [political journalist] says.

Moreover, this internal party dispute about the visions of Klaus and Topolanek will significantly influence the Czech Republic's future course.

Topolanek has so far bet on responsibility. Klaus has not. What will the rest of the ODS, especially elected legislators, select?

Meaningless political waffle and clever-dick stories appear not to be the sole preserve of the British media.

The same summary gives other opinions in the Czech Republic that seem outraged by the demand that the Irish referendum be run again.

In his interview on the 17th President Vaclav Klaus remained uncompromising:

What do you think about the Irish No?
The whole of Europe should thank the Irish people for slowing down current erroneous processes towards more unification, the suppression of nation states, towards a 'Europe of regions', and towards greater centralization from above of which the Lisbon Treaty was the embodiment. Thanks to the Irish referendum this was a perfect example of what the common people think about this development - contrary to the politicians supporting the EU who are motivated entirely differently. I thanked a few Irish people personally.

What does the Irish NO mean for the fate of the Lisbon Treaty in your view? What will be its impact for the entire EU?
I cannot imagine any other development besides recognizing the fact that this is not the way to go. Let's seek a different European model than a supranational state with its seat in Brussels. Let's come back to the community of friendly, effectively cooperating states. Let's keep most of the competencies on the level of states. We should let people living on the European continent be Czechs, Poles, Italians, Danes and not make Europeans of them. That is a wrong project. The difference between a Czech, a Pole, an Italian and a Dane (as random examples) and a European is like the difference between Czech, Polish, Danish and esperanto. "Europeanness" is esperanto; an artificial, dead language.

What follows from the Irish No for the Czech Republic? Should we continue in preparing the ratification under these circumstances, or is it not necessary? E.g. the British declared that they are going to continue in the ratification, despite the results in Ireland...
The ratification cannot be continued, the Treaty can no longer come into force. To continue as though nothing has happened, would be a pure hypocrisy. This would be worse news about the "state of the Union" than the Irish NO. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic ended last Friday. To pretend something else is undignified - at least if we are in a world where one plus one equals two. I think that the British didn't declare anything. It was the Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown who declared something. The British democracy is much more complex.

Does the Irish NO change your attitude towards the option of having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic? And if so, how?
The referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in our country is not necessary today; there is nothing to vote on. The only possible question would be: "Do you, the Czechs, want the Irish to vote again and differently?". It is not about us today.

Should the European Union attempt to create an entirely new document after the Irish NO, instead of dusting the Treaty off or revising it?
Any document is only the last step. We need a new perception of the European integration process. It is necessary to explicitly repudiate the post-Maastricht development towards an ever closer union. The resulting document is then only a composition exercise, but it must be written on a different basis and by different people.

It cannot be written by a German politician who thinks in federalist terms and has been in the European Parliament for the past 30 years. It can neither be written by a Frenchman for whom "Europeanisation" is a way to increase the greatness and importance of France. It can neither be a representative of a country which wants to solve some of its historical traumas "via Europe".

It requires an unemotional consideration about the right administration of "public goods" - which of them belong at the level of towns, regions and states and which at the level of the continent. And above all, which of them do not belong anywhere, because the issue is not about public goods but about "private goods" which must remain subject to the decision-making of free individuals.

What will be the impact of the Irish decision on the Czech EU Presidency in 2009?
We will have a little more competences than we would, was the Lisbon Treaty valid. The Treaty substantially weakened the states and therefore also the presidency of any one of them. But let us not live in illusions. I know well, that the entire concept of a rotating presidency is to a certain extent just a game pretending to represent a real democracy.

Meanwhile, Prague Post reports Sarkozy’s visit to the Czech Republic immediately after the Irish debacle and his pleas that his hosts should act in the interests of the European project:

Sarkozy, however, called for more immediate and definitive action. "We cannot afford to plunge the EU into 10 years of institutional debate," he said. "Eighteen countries have ratified the treaty so far and others should go on with the process, while we try to find a solution to the problem ahead of us," he said. Sarkozy also stressed the fact that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised to continue with the ratification process.

It seems that his Czech interlocutors had hardened their hearts to his Gallic charm with both Klaus and Topolanek refusing to agree to any decisions. That may have something to do with the fact that the Czech Constitutional Court has not yet pronounced on the Treaty though one cannot expect Sarko to understand that.

The discussions also touched on bilateral relations between the two countries, which surely ought to be a thing of the past with the glorious European integration beckoning us to the bright future.

There was one slight embarrassment in the discussions, which indicated that preparations had not been particularly thorough:

Sarkozy had also been expected to present a bronze statue of Jan Palach — a Czech student who burnt himself to death on Wenceslas Square in 1969 to protest the Soviet-led invasion — as a gift to the Czech government expressing France's will to develop strong ties with "new Europe." The statue had been created in France by Hungarian sculptor András Beck a year after Palach’s death.

While the Czech Foreign Affairs Ministry expressed its gratitude for the offer, it suggested it would be better to keep it in France, as a copy is already on display at the Jan Palach High School in Prague and France is one of a few European countries that do not have Palach statues. The university town of Dijon, which has strong ties with Prague, is said to be a likely choice to house the statue, which could be unveiled there next year on the 40th anniversary of Palach's death.

Hmm. I can't help feeling that the Czechs came out the winners in that discussion. They politely rejected the present and equally politely reminded the French President that his country has not yet honoured Jan Palach. Should that not be rectified if France wants to take the role of Eastern Europe's special friend?

As other member states continue to ignore the legal position that was clearly expressed by Lord Neill of Bladen and Lord Kingsland, constitutional lawyers both, that the Treaty is now a dead duck and whatever happens later, it will be a different treaty, the Czechs have expressed their disappointment with Britain.

Britain, in President Klaus's opinion should not have pushed on with ratification of the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty but led the way to the creation of a very different document. (We think a dissolution document would be in order and we do not really need President Klaus to write it, as he is offering to do.)

The blame game

It is all the fault of member state government leaders, who "tarnish the EU image in their countries". They are responsible for "negative results" in EU referendums.

That, at least, is the view of Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker who claims that, "Politicians give the impression that Europe is being built against their will."

Thus, says Juncker, when it comes to European Council meetings, you get governments which "always try to explain in their countries that they have won against Europe."

He reads newspaper articles in several languages following the Councils and argues that the "aggressive language" used is "better suited to football matches". Furthermore, he insists that such reports are in fact very far away from the reality. "Sometimes," he says, "I feel like I haven't been in the [same] meeting room."

We almost certainly saw some of this recently when the Bloomberg press agency had members of the General Affairs council quarrelling "over the fate of the bloc's new governing treaty after a veto in Ireland slammed the brakes on moves toward a more politically united Europe."

Yet, the extensive official photographic record shows nothing but conviviality (example left) and, while the is undoubtedly some acrimony (the final summit of the Nice treaty IGC is an example), most often the "colleagues" are rarely at odds.

Part of the phenomenon on which Juncker remarks is more to do with the media than the politicians. The hacks invariably want to present EU meetings in theatrical terms, talking up "conflict" and "disagreements" in order to liven up reports of what are mostly crushingly tedious events.

Much of then what goes on the record is massively distorted, aided and abetted by individual politicians who never miss an opportunity to grandstand, and who know that bland, neutral comments rarely attract media coverage.

Oddly enough though, there is another phenomenon to which Juncker does not allude. This is the "elephant in the room" syndrome, about which we have complained so often. When – as it so often does, - the EU messes up, the media coverage is usually distressingly slight.

Thus – as always – Juncker is looking at just one part of a complex issue. In truth, if the EU got all the coverage it "deserved", Mr Jucker would be even less happy than he is at the moment.

COMMENT THREAD

An object lesson

Barely a day goes by without us receiving e-mails from diverse eurosceptic sources, urging (or supporting) judicial action and/or lobbying the Queen, etc., etc., in the increasingly frenetic desire to block the constitutional Lisbon treaty.

The latest of the legal attempts was a last-ditch move by Bill Cash, who sought a judicial review of the UK ratification process. He said it would be unlawful for the UK government to continue with it.

However, entirely predictably, the attempt has failed. In his ruling against the application, Mr Justice Collins said: "It will be for Parliament, not the court, to decide whether the Bill should be passed."

He added that ratification was "a matter of political not judicial decision" and Mr Cash's case was "totally without merit since it is an attempt to pursue a political agenda through the court".

And therein lies the truth. Our continued membership of the EU – and all that stems from it – is primarily a political issue and must be addressed through parliament rather than the courts. It is our MPs to whom we must turn our attention for, the fact remains that we are in the EU because our MPs permit it.

It is they, and they alone, are responsible for this mess – individually and collectively.

COMMENT THREAD

No sense of shame

A superb piece from Iain Martin.

COMMENT THREAD

A black day

I'm back, after a glorious day in sunny Paris (outskirts thereof) to black news on the political and defence front (four troops killed in a "Snatch" Land Rover in Afghanistan). I will post on both in more detail later.

As a holding post, we record that our provincial parliament in Westminster yesterday completed ratification of the constitutional Lisbon treaty, the first country – as Reuters reports - to do so "since Irish voters plunged the bloc into turmoil by rejecting the treaty in a referendum".

The treaty passed through the House of Lords after their lordships rejected moves by Conservative peers to delay the ratification process because of the Irish "no" vote. The government then declared that the treaty would receive royal assent "later on Wednesday or early on Thursday", bringing it into law (but not into effect).

This is a wholly illegitimate act which robs this government itself of legitimacy. And no, we have not lost our country – but we are losing our own government as yet more of its powers are destined for transfer to Brussels.

Meanwhile, as the pic shows, another futile demonstration in the EU parliament – well meant and necessary and itself a symbol of our powerlessness, when the only thing left to do is indulge in impotent protest.

However, we will not remain impotent for ever. The "colleagues" are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, and increasing numbers of people now are more than willing to help them with that task. How ever long it takes, and no matter what it costs, they will not prevail.

COMMENT THREAD

Well, I hate being contrary ...

... but with all the rejoicing over the Irish result and discussion as to what the colleagues might or might not do (whatever it is will be bad for us in the short term) I still see no indication that soi-disant eurosceptics are making an effort to understand the nature of the enemy.

Via Conservative Home we hear of another YouGov poll conducted on behalf of Open Europe, our new best friends (heh, the boss is away, looking at toys), which gives apparently very helpful results.

54% agreed with the statement that "The government should drop the Lisbon Treaty and not try and ratify it".

Just 14% agreed that "The government should carry on and ratify the Lisbon Treaty in the UK".

Labour voters are 46% to 19% against continuing ratification of the Treaty.

29% said that "The UK should stay in the EU".

38% said that "The UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the other political elements of the EU".

24% said "The UK should leave the EU altogether".

65% agreed with the statement "The EU is out of touch with normal people".

88% said they could not name any of their MEPs. Among those who did attempt to name some of their MEPs, the most popular choice was "Neil Kinnock".

Disregarding that last question in that I am a little surprised that 12 per cent could actually name their MEPs (I suppose 12 per cent of 1,000 is not that many people), we are back to the usual problem.

What is it people are being asked and what is it they are telling us. All right, just over half agreed that the Lisbon Treaty should be dropped. Actually, that is rather low. Far too many people seem to think that it is OK to disregard referendum results and break one's own rules (whatever happened to that club we are always being told about?) Well 14 per cent is too high. And the number of people who seem to have no opinion on the subject is shockingly high.

29 per cent on one side and 24 per cent on the other seemed to have some idea of what they wanted, though what is the betting that a large proportion of the former keeps whining that this is not the way the EU should be going?

But what on earth do the 38 per cent think they are talking about? Do they know what the single market is or how one could possibly achieve the status they seem to yearn for? Do those who formulate the questions know? Do the gifted members of Open Europe, our new best friends, know? If so, they are keeping very quiet.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is not that easy to change our status in the EU. We would have to renegotiate the treaties and you can bet all you possess that if that remote possibility happened and a new treaty was achieved without anybody killing anybody else, the rule about unanimity would apply.

The sad truth is that, Lisbon Treaty or not, we remain full members of the European Union with no obvious way out (that Article in the Treaty that allegedly makes it possible does nothing of the kind, if you read it carefully) and no obvious way of making the change apparently so desired by the people of this country. I wonder when our allies and best friends will grasp that and move on to the next stage.

An own goal

They are even upsetting their own side.

COMMENT THREAD

Light blogging from me

At a toy exhibition today. Back late with lots of pics – I hope.

Democracy in action – EU style

Hailed as the face of democracy in the European Union, the EU parliament has rejected the idea of allowing the Irish to renegotiate the constitutional Lisbon treaty, and has told member states to get on with ratifying the treaty.

According to Reuters, particularly vocal has been German social democrat MEP, Martin Schulz – once famously described as a concentration camp guard by Berlusconi, now leader of the parliament's socialist group. True to his reputation, Schultz ridiculed the idea of attaching protocols to the treaty to reassure Ireland that its interests are protected. "We would be a laughing stock at the end of the day," said the man. "Nothing that is being criticised about the treaty is in the treaty."

Equally uncompromising was Joseph Daul, leader of the European People's Party - of which the Conservatives are members. "I would call for all EU states to continue with ratification," he declared.

Also pitching in was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-leader of the Green Party: "If we have 26 countries having ratified, then the Irish will be obliged to give answers on what they want to do," he said. "Countries could not have their cake and eat it by pocketing the benefits of Europe without Europe," he added, complaining that the Irish political elites had failed to take the referendum seriously: "Essentially, the Irish people were considered stupid. The Irish felt something was hidden from them and nothing was hidden at all."

Britain's Lib-dim, Graham Watson, also lacked kind words for the Irish government. They had failed to explain the benefits of EU membership to citizens and were too slow to act on concerns such as rising oil and food prices. "The first lesson we have learned is that every government every single day has to be making the case for Europe and not just wait for a treaty to be signed."

England Expects gives an insight into the mindset of these people – beyond parody, he says.

COMMENT THREAD

Will they stop it?

Today at around 3.30 the House of Lords will launch into the Third Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill. Before they can debate the substantive motion (to give this Bill a third reading) they will have to debate and amendment that is down in Lord Howell's name:

Lord Howell of Guildford to move, as an amendment to the motion that this bill be now read a third time, leave out from "that" to end and insert, "notwithstanding the normal practice of the House, this bill be read a third time no earlier than Monday 20 October 2008 to allow—

(a) Parliament to consider the most appropriate response to the changed circumstances and uncertainties caused by the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum; and

(b) any amendments to the bill made necessary by those changed circumstances to be considered in detail by the House, if necessary on recommitment."

Though the desired result is to abandon the debate and the Bill altogether, calling for the suspension of the debate till October (that is the last few days of this session) may well be a better strategy. We shall see.

COMMENT THREAD

That petition

Well over 10,000 now – eight hours after launch. This is "viral marketing" at its best.

Do it again

Like some poor demented creature on a treadmill, doomed to keep plodding on the same path, it appears that the Irish may, after all, be told to go away and vote again on the constitutional Lisbon treaty.

This is hard to believe, given all the recent pronouncements, but it is in The Daily Telegraph so it must be true.

Actually, the story is by Bruno Waterfield and he has a pretty good track record, unless his stories have been doctored by his gifted editors in London. He is saying that the "colleagues" are taking heart from an EU commission poll which indicates that many of those who voted "no" believed a new deal could be easily renegotiated - more detail here, plus Speigel.

Thus we are told, Dick Roche, Ireland's veteran Europe Minister, is hinting that his country will seek new guarantees before a second vote, in a re-run of the Nice treaty referendum in 2002.

Then, of course, the Irish people were presented with a rigged question on the back of some paper – entirely worthless – guarantees – and it looks like the "colleagues" think they can pull the same stunt again.

This seems to please our favourite Frenchman, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, who is already on record saying there can be "no renegotiation" of the treaty.

As long as the Irish can be dragooned into giving the "right" answer, Jouyet believes that the delay in complete ratification can be contained to about six months after the 1 January 2009 deadline, in good time for the Euro-Elections in mid June.

On that basis, the "colleagues" are already continuing with implementation, gathering nominations for the new, full-time EU president. Jouyet is entirely unrepentant, saying that, "I do not think that one can say that the Treaty of Lisbon is dead even if there is a delay to the ratification process as well as decisions, such as nominations, which arise from the implementation of this Treaty."

He adds: "We will return to the entering into force of the treaty of Lisbon as close as possible to the European elections."

The question is then, will the Irish fold, like they did in 2001, or will they finally call the bluff of this monster which simply does not know how to take "no" for an answer?

UPDATE: The Irish Times is reporting that the leaders of the two main Opposition parties have now said "they do not favour another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty with the same wording being put to the people again". However, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and Labour leader Eamon Gilmore "have not ruled out supporting another referendum if a different proposition is put to the voters".

What price the word of a politician?

COMMENT THREAD

A hidden agenda?

The last thing the global monetary system needs at the moment is a clash between the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve over strategy. Yet that, according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is precisely what it has got.

His source is a report by Morgan Stanley's European experts who are warning of serious strains in the global financial system that "could lead to a replay of Europe's exchange rate crisis in the 1990s". "We see striking similarities between the transatlantic tensions that built up in the early 1990s and those that are accumulating again today. The outcome of the 1992 deadlock was a major currency crisis and a recession in Europe," they say.

At the heart of all this is the starkly different priorities between the ECB and the Fed, the former still taking inflation as its exclusive concern, and thus holding up interest rate, "ignoring angry protests from politicians and squeals of pain from Europe's export industry." On the other hand the Fed, is responding to the "credit crunch" by trimming rates in order to promote economic growth.

That apart, Ambrose reminds us once again that the ECB policy is also creating considerable strains within the eurozone itself, badly affecting the vulnerable countries of the Club Med region and the euro-satellite states of Eastern Europe.

The point of maximum stress, he writes, could occur in coming months if the ECB carries out the threat this month by Jean-Claude Trichet to raise rates. It will be worse yet - for Europe - if the Fed backs away from expected tightening. "This could trigger another 'catastrophic' event," warns Morgan Stanley.

And it is here that Ambrose misses a trick – although, to be fair, it is not directly relevant to his article. Behind the scenes – as indeed Ambrose has recorded – there have been strenuous efforts by Sarkozy (and Chirac before him) to rein in the ECB and bring it under political control, thus enabling a change in policy to one more favourable to the Club Med members, of which France is a "founder" member.

And, as part of that French strategy, was a plan to use the constitutional Lisbon treaty to absorb the ECB into the EU as a fully-fledged Community institution, alongside the commission, subject to the aims and objectives of the EU. This we reported last August (twice) and, while it caused a frisson of concern at the time, the late inclusion of the ECB into the treaty has been largely forgotten.

However, this could explain the desperation of the French to see the Lisbon treaty ratified and then implemented. This is not "only" political. Since their very economic survival depends upon it, that could be their hidden agenda.

COMMENT THREAD

That petition

Nearly 7,000 in four hours - with no (dead tree) media backing, as yet.

Turning to other subjects

The American Enterprise Institute has an interesting piece by David Frum on anti-Americanism. The author is one of those people who excites more hatred from the "liberal" and not so liberal media than almost anyone else. If only we on this blog could generate those emotions. They we would know we were succeeding.

Mr Frum describes his session as witness to a subcommittee of the House committee on foreign affairson whether anti-Americanism went up because of the Bush presidency and, specifically, because of the Iraqi war.

Unsurprisingly, he notes that neither of those is true, anti-Americanism being rife some years before that, even in the supposedly halcyon years of the Clinton administration. He draws an interesting link between anti-Americanism and state control of media. As the latter takes off or intensifies, the former grows exponentially. One wonders what he would make of British anti-Americanism.

Lisbon or bust!

The EU must not embark on drafting a new treaty. This is the view of Jean-Pierre Jouyet, France's Europe minister - via the BBC - delivered to the French senate prior to France assuming the presidency.

Not that anybody thought differently – although some commentators have suggested it – Jouyet is adamant on this point. Whatever else happens in the aftermath of the Irish vote, "One thing is certain,” he says, “we won't start drafting a new treaty."

"Europe didn't come to a halt on 13 June," he adds, then delivering the coup de grace to those who had hoped the "no" vote might put a spoke in the wheel of European integration.

"We cannot allow ourselves to delay decisions... which can be dealt with independently of institutional matters," says Jouyet, demonstrating once and for all his grasp of the finer points of democracy.

But then this is the man whose response to the Irish victory was: “The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found."

It seems the new slogan for the French presidency will be: "Lisbon or bust".

COMMENT THREAD

There's a thing!

Germany accused of "arrogance". Meanwhile, Bruno says "do not resuscitate".

COMMENT THREAD

A missed opportunity?

Interesting how, following the triumphal meeting arranged by Open Europe and Policy Exchange on the Irish "no" vote - featuring Declan Ganley – the only detailed report we get is from arch euophiliac Michael White in The Guardian.

Without that, all we seem to have is this (from which photo nicked – ta!).

Perhaps the real reason for the silence is that - as Mr White cannot resist telling us - Declan Ganley is most decidedly not a eurosceptic. Applause, it appears, was decidedly muted when, on several occasions, he told his less than enthusiastic audience that he was "an enthusiastic pro-European".

COMMENT THREAD

A petition

Here. Not often you will see these two names together.

COMMENT THREAD

A silent edit

The fragrant Margot Wallström was quick off the mark yesterday, blogging on the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg – but perhaps too quick.

In an unexpected burst of candour, she announced: "The fact is that all Treaties have to be ratified unanimously so as things stand it is not possible for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force", an admission which seemed to drive a horse and cart through her boss's statement that the treaty was not dead.

However, good things never last. No sooner had the piece been posted then it disappeared, along with the comments. No traces were left, not in the cache or the RSS feed. Someone took a great deal of effort to ensure that all records of the post were expunged.

Then, miraculously, the post reappeared – apparently the same, but actually with one very important difference. To her otherwise candid admission, the words "as foreseen" had been added. Thus, the new sentence reads (our emphasis):

The fact is that all Treaties have to be ratified unanimously so as things stand it is not possible for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force as foreseen.

Unfortunately for the Fragrant One, the change was spotted by "sean7", a hack working for Mail and the Guardian, who posted his observations on her blog. He added, "I presume you won't mind me mentioning the very peculiar alterations … in an article, to illustrate the mindset of the European Commission."

So far, answer there has been none. It seems our Margot has learnt the art of the silent edit.

COMMENT THREAD

They might win this battle

Eventually they will win this battle and the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty will be ratified in some way. It will be a pyrrhic victory at best. Not only does the whole saga leave a nasty feeling of resentment across the European Union, one that even the fragrant Margot will not be able to waft away through her dialogues, but a number of other people are waking up to what is going on.

The Wall Street Journal has a very angry article on the subject, lambasting President Sarkozy and his self-satisfied pronouncements. France is taking over the rotating presidency in just a few days, the article points out, and it is high time its president stopped making meaningless pronouncements about "building Europe".

"Building"? Mr. Sarkozy, whose country takes over the EU's rotating presidency next month, would have sounded more credible had he called for a new way of bullying Europe. For that's what seems to be happening. In the wake of the Irish rejection, other nations on the fence about Lisbon - the UK, the Czech Republic, perhaps Sweden - are being pushed to proceed with ratification. Ireland has been threatened with near-expulsion from the Union unless Dublin finds a way to sneak the treaty past its voters.

Near-expulsion or expulsion may not be the worst thing, especially if the Irish take various goodies such as fish with them but that is not what the "no" campaign wanted.

Even the International Herald Tribune is humming and ha-ing, unhappy at the sight of Ireland being bullied and taking some comfort from the lessening of the bullying.

Many of the American blogs are unhappy as well and over there they have far more influence than the blogosphere does here.

COMMENT THREAD

Anti-democratic

It's taken them long enough, but they’ve finally got the message …. Says The Daily Telegraph leader of the current machinations of the "colleagues":

It confirms, if confirmation were needed, that the EU is not undemocratic but anti-democratic.

Between "undemocratic" and "anti-democratic" there is a huge difference. The EU was designed ab initio to confound the very principles of democracy, its intention being to destroy those democratic structures on which the European nations rely.

It is not accidental, or something that has emerged. It was built in from the very start. And now, even The Daily Telegraph is noticing. There's progress for you.

COMMENT THREAD

Not Czech-mate yet

My colleague has expressed the not infrequently held view that Central European politics cannot be understood by mere mortals. I wouldn’t go as far as that. Plenty of mortals around who do understand Czech and, sometimes, even Polish or Slovenian politics. Hungarian politics is dead easy. You just have to be a little mad to grasp it.

On various occasions in the past I have tried to explain why Central European countries seem to look at matters differently from the way West Europeans do and what the main tenets of their politics might be. No doubt I shall return to the subject in the future.

In the meantime, let us have a quick look at the situation in the Czech Republic as far as the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty is concerned. UPI sums up:

Czech leaders called for an end to the ratification process of the European Commission's Lisbon treaty in the wake of its rejection in an Irish referendum.

President Vaclav Klaus, the only truly principled politician in the former Soviet bloc and much disliked by his colleagues because of that, announced as a number of newspapers noted, that the Irish no vote shouold mean the end of the Treaty and of the ratification process. He will find out at next week's European Council meeting that it ain't necessarily so. Then again, Klaus is one of the very very few politicians in the world who may be stubborn enough to hold on to his position.
Czech Senate Chairman Premysl Sobotka has agreed with the President, which might mean a united front on the issue. The Senate has submitted the treaty to the Constitutional Court and its verdict is awaited.

It is not precisely true, as Radio Free Europe maintains, that “many other countries in Eastern Europe are also intensely skeptical of further political integration”. Well, they may be sceptical but they rushed to ratify the latest manifestation of that integration with quite indecent haste. Hungary was the first to ratify, as I recall. Some, I suspect, are trying to play it both ways. Yes, we are sceptical but we are also good Europeans. Now, I imagine, some are having second thoughts.

Beyond the pronouncements, the Senate, controlled by the ODS, voted in April 48 to 4 with 18 abstentions to ask the Constitutional Court to rule on whether the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty is compatible with Czech law. So far the Court has not ruled but, no doubt, the Irish referendum will jog their memory.

At present, the Czechs are holding out against the pressure from the more communautaire members of the EU, led by President Sarkozy who has sped to Central Europe to meet the prime ministers of four countries in Prague.

The chorus of defiance includes Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek as well as Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra. Mr Topolanek has expressed the opinion that the ratification process has already been suspended in his country. Furthermore, he thought that the Irish vote should be respected (what a very peculiar idea!) and, in any case, it seems unlikely that the Treaty will enter into force on January 1, 2009, the date, on which, coincidentally, the Czech Republic will take over the rotating presidency.

The Visegrád countries (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) do seem to have cracked one of the codes the EU is fond of using. They have announced that, disregarding the fact, that the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty has run into some difficulty, the enlargement process must continue and Croatia must become member of the EU as soon as possible with others following her. What they did not seem to discuss is who was going to provide the money for this process that seems to resemble the perpetual motion machine.

COMMENT THREAD

The game is far from over

Having complained long and hard about the lack of media interest in EU affairs, the boot is now on the other foot. There is now so much coverage that it is hard to keep track of it. Much of it is noise of course, but the sheer volume does suggest that the Irish referendum has caught the media, if not the popular, imagination.

Particularly impressive is The Times today, which runs no less than four articles, including a comment piece from Peter Riddell.

It is there, though, that you can see the media attraction, as the issue now has a strong domestic dimension, Riddell arguing that it is: "Tough for Gordon Brown to avoid EU nightmare after Irish reject Lisbon treaty".

Of particular interest is a move by the Tories in the Lords to put up a motion calling for the suspension of the ratification process - the main story in the paper – and one which has already attracted the opposition of the government. Thus does Riddell think that the ratification Bill will still get its third reading tomorrow but, he ventures, "the margin could be narrow".

Nevertheless, The Times puts its weight behind the Lords, arguing that, as long as the outcome of the constitutional Lisbon treaty is so uncertain, it should not be ratified.

The reaction of most EU governments to the decision of Irish voters to reject the Lisbon treaty has, says the paper, been extraordinary. There has been contempt - suggestions that the Irish people are fearful, uncomprehending and irrational; there has been denial.

Wolfgang Schäuble, the wonderful stage German is also cited. It is he that we featured on Sunday - abstracted from Deutsche Welle - declaring that "a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans". At last, the paper has caught up, now railing against the "combination of arrogance and unreality" of European leaders who are "busy briefing that nothing has changed and that the treaty sails on."

This is, of course, what we have been trying to point out ever since last Wednesday and, now that the penny has dropped, the great Thunderer is mortified.

To pass the Bill on Wednesday, it says, is therefore to pass into law a treaty that may change profoundly, says the paper, or may never be implemented at all. The only purpose in doing so is to bully the Irish.

Before the third reading begins in the Lords, that House retains the ability to return the treaty to committee for further detailed consideration. This is an option very much worth preserving given the current uncertainty. Peers will be given the chance to vote to delay the third reading. They should take it.

There are few marks here for analysis but the fact is that the "colleagues" rely on doing their work in the shadows, away from the bright light of media scrutiny. With the media hue and cry now full on, it no longer matters quite what they intended – the barrage of hostile comment is going to tax their nerve and resolve.

The theme that Ireland is somehow going to be cast into outer darkness, with the rest of the member states setting up a "two tier" Europe has somehow caught the imagination, and it is one that The Daily Telegraph also pursues – as do many of the other media outlets.

Ambrose Evans-Pritichard savages this idea on his clog, referring to the "bullying treatment of Ireland", declaring attempts at exclusion as "not legal". Any attempt to proceed without Irish compliance, he writes, is a Putsch.

Such is the interest in this that the issue even passes the Daily Mail test, with that paper offering a long piece, putting Brown in the frame for refusing to kill off the European "constitution" despite last week's decisive 'No' vote from Ireland

More measured – as one might expect – is the Financial Times which is suggesting that Ireland will be offered additional guarantees of its sovereignty – possibly in areas such as taxation, military policy and family law – under an emergency plan to save the treaty.

But that is neglecting the essential fact that this would have to be put to another referendum, when there is a very real possibility that the Irish would reject by an even wider margin. Altogether, the media is in as much disarray as it would have afflicting the "colleagues".

That is added to by the europhile offerings from The Guardian and the Independent, the former – with input from our forum - suggesting that the Czech situation is by no means clear-cut.

That said, there is no easy way to penetrate the noise level generated both by the media and loose-tongued politicians. It is going to take a while for the dust to settle and a clear line emerge. The crucial time is going to be this weekend when we get to see the European Council communiqué but, if by then, they have not forged a common line, we can assume the Irish have done serious damage to the "project".

Nonetheless, the "colleagues" have an unparalleled capacity for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. The game is far from over.

COMMENT THREAD

One side fits all

Conservative Home has William Hague's response to David Miliband’s statement to the Commons on the Irish referendum result. Oddly though, it does not carry Miliband's statement.

Do we care?

COMMENT THREAD

The Financial Times clog

"In the Orwellian world of the European Union, no does not really mean no, a treaty pronounced dead by popular vote is still alive and the bloc's parliament rejects the popular vote as undemocratic."

Yes, really!

COMMENT THREAD

This is your dinner …

Well, not you, in particular. But the picture shows a deteriorating situation in the mid-west which we reported on last week.

Given remarkably little coverage in the British media, the Wall Street Journal picks it up today in an editorial, likening the record floods to the mid-west version of Katrina.

The floods have done enormous damage, especially in the industrial city of Cedar Rapids where the Cedar River crested at some 31 feet on Friday, compared to 19 feet during the 1993 flood.

But the paper also notes what the British media have failed to do - the national, and even global, consequences through rising food prices. The rains have further delayed planting for this year's corn crop, with perhaps as many as three million acres lost for the year. Some farmers, it says, may be able to plant soybeans instead, if the rains let up, but others may simply file for federal crop insurance for lost acreage.

The paper also concludes that "little that can be done about freakish weather", rightly then adding that "that's all the more reason for policy makers not to create artificially high prices with bad policy." It focuses on high prices made higher than they should be due to ethanol subsidies and especially the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy. Corn was only $4 a bushel as recently as last August, but by April had hit $6. You can't blame that on the weather, says the paper.

However, while there is no attempt to explain the "freakish weather", those of a more curious disposition might care to look at the latest post on Watts up with that. This catalogues the growing evidence that the solar activity is declining sharply, with profound implications for the climate and global food supplies.

In short, there are very strong indications that we are about to – if not already – entering a period of significant global cooling. This is why today, presumably, David Cameron delivered a long speech on Conservative policy to deal with, er … global warming.

As always, the politicians are behind the curve – this one as much as the rest. But, while he is talking about "one of the most radical technological and social shifts for generations… reconfiguring our whole economy and overturning our whole hydrocarbon dependency," the mid-west could be sending us signals that we are about to be very hungry indeed, while the food commodity price rises we have seen over the previous years are but a harbinger.

COMMENT THREAD

Stitching up the deal

Inevitably, the media are going for the "theatre", with the Bloomberg press agency reporting that EU foreign ministers have "quarrelled over the fate of the bloc's new governing treaty after a veto in Ireland slammed the brakes on moves toward a more politically united Europe."

But, as you can see from one of the official photographs of the meeting in Luxembourg, the "colleagues" are getting on jus' fine and dandy. This one (above) shows Dora Bakyanni, Greek minister for foreign affairs, Bernard Kouchner, French minister for foreign and European affairs, Jean Asselborn, minister for foreign affairs of Luxembourg, Dimitrij Rupel, Slovenian minister for foreign affairs, and the "chairman-in-office of the Council", secretary-general/high representative Javier Solana.

Nevertheless, the fiction must remain for general public consumption that EU ministers have "showcased their disagreements over how to respond to Ireland's rejection of the treaty." Thus, for the benefit of the hacks, Slovenia's Dimitrij Rupel is saying: "It would be risky to say that we are going to bring the treaty back to life when we face a blockade."

The real meat, however, comes from three foreign ministers from countries yet to ratify - Britain, Italy and Sweden. Each has obediently pledged to press on with the process, saying that their views shouldn't be denied by the Irish rejection. "We don't see any reason to abstain from having our voice just because they had their voice," says Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt says.

Then we get Finnish foreign minister Alexander Stubb insisting that "the treaty is not dead," leaving the only dissenter, Czech president Vaclav Klaus, hailing the defeat of an "elitist artificial project." Behind his back, though, Sarkozy is meeting Czech prime minister Mirek Topolánek today – and that is where the real power lies.

Meanwhile, Open Europe and Policy Exchange have got together for a meeting this evening on the theme "The Irish no vote: what next?" Declan Ganley, leader of the Irish no campaign – who led it to "a stunning victory" – will look at how the "no" vote happened, what it means, and what should happen next.

By the time the meeting is over, it will already have happened. The "colleagues" in Luxembourg will have stitched up their deal. There has been no victory, stunning or otherwise.

COMMENT THREAD

The last time

It is nice of George W to drop into Downing Street to have a chat with Gordon – our current (and last) prime minister. And how apposite it is that, while the two Gs pose at the front door, David Miliband is sneaking out the back (metaphorically), off to Luxembourg for the next act in the process of transferring our central government to Brussels.

While he is here, GW is – we are told – talking to Gordon about progress in the world trade talks. But he really should not be wasting his time. World trade issues are an EU competence so, if George wants to discuss progress he would be better off popping over to Brussels to talk to the organ grinders rather than the monkey.

Over term, that is what will happen more and more frequently. Once the constitutional Lisbon treaty is in force, the primary role of a British prime minister will be his membership of the European Council, where all the important decisions are made.

US officials will gradually realise that power has moved from London (and other member state capitals) to Brussels. In decades to come, US presidents will see no more sense in visiting Downing Street than, in the past, there would have been any value in a British prime minister dropping in on the state governor of Colorado to discuss US policy.

In effect, therefore, this is not only Bush's last visit here. It is also the last time a US president will visit a prime minister of Britain. The next president will be meeting a provincial governor.

COMMENT THREAD

Fair enough

Terence Ferry of Dublin writes in The Daily Telegraph letters: "Sir - There were three reasons we Irish voted No in our EU referendum: Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party. They urged us to vote Yes."

You can't say fairer than that.

A stealth treaty

Bruno Waterfield is back on the case, telling us via The Daily Telegraph that the EU Treaty is "likely to be imposed by stealth despite Irish no vote".

With Rosa Prince, he informs us that at least 85 percent of the measures proposed in the Treaty can be introduced using existing European powers. And a large number have already been established in anticipation of ratification, including the Human Rights Agency and the European Defence Agency (to say nothing of the Space Council).

Dan Hannan also pitches in on the same theme, making three of us (four, if you want to include Prince) with absolutely no illusions that, Irish vote notwithstanding, the "colleagues" are going to plough on regardless.

Actually, though, the "85 percent" is somewhat arbitrary and, to an extent, meaningless. Even if it is measuring articles in numerical terms, not all have the same weight and some are very much more important that others.

The huge blind spot is the European Council. Almost to a man (and woman) commentators have fallen for the bland description of "institutional" reform, not understanding that this apparently harmless little word is a eu-phemism for "governmental".

Thus, they have not even begun to understand that one of the most important provisions of the new treaty is to bring the European Council into the maw of the institutional framework, bringing the Supreme Government of Europe closer to its final shape.

This, above all else, is why the "colleagues" are not going to stop. Their construct cannot be complete until they have their governmental institutional structures in place, and that is why they have invested such huge political capital into securing this treaty.

All of that, of course, leaves William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, bleating in the wilderness. He is cited by the Telegraph as accusing the government of political cowardice, in failing to admit that the treaty had been killed off by the Irish "no" vote. He is also calling for a halt to ratification.

But, of course, the treaty is not dead. As we wrote earlier, it is not even resting. And that is why Miliband is insisting that British ratification will go ahead. He cannot allow any other course and, even if – as we expect – the Lords will put down a motion today calling for the process to be abandoned, it will continue.

One wishes sometimes that Hague would stop grandstanding, and tell it like it is - except that he probably has no idea what is going on anyway. Hence he has declared: "The only point in other countries continuing to ratify the treaty is to put pressure on the Irish, to bully the Irish - a kind of preparatory move to saying to the Irish 'You're going to have to vote again on this.'"

But then, this really is a "stealth treaty". The man can't see what's coming.

COMMENTS (Irish referendum thread)

Cat out of the bag

The European Union will find a way to implement the Lisbon treaty, leaving Ireland potentially isolated within the EU. And there will be another Irish referendum at some point, probably in the first half of next year.

That is the view (or expectation) of Wolfgang Münchau, columnist for The Financial Times. So solidly europhiliac is this man that, if you cut him in half (do not try this at home), you would see the words "European Union" running through him like a stick of rock.

And, he asks – rhetorically … they love their rhetorical questions – "Why am I so confident that the Lisbon treaty is going to be implemented?" You do not have to wait long for an answer:

Because, contrary to widespread protestations, Europe's leaders actually have a plan B. It is not a pretty plan. Just listen to what senior French and German politicians had to say over the weekend. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, suggested on Saturday that one way to implement the treaty was for Ireland to withdraw temporarily from the process of European integration … What he is saying in effect is that Ireland should quit the EU.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French European minister, said something similar. He talked about a "legal arrangement" with the Irish. It seems to me that France and Germany have put some thought into how to drive the Irish out of the EU if they fail to reverse their "no" vote.

With the cat only poking its head out of the bag, it now takes a gigantic leap and it is free. Writes Münchau:

The most important prerequisite of plan B is a 26-to-1 situation in terms of countries that have actually ratified the treaty. This outcome is far from assured and explains why Brussels, Berlin and Paris are so adamant that the ratification show must continue. So far 18 countries have ratified, with eight to go plus Ireland. Once 26 countries have ratified, EU countries accounting for more than 99 per cent of the EU's population will have approved the Lisbon treaty. The pressure on Ireland would then become unbearable.

This is, of course, why the pressure is on for the UK to continue the ratification process. As Münchau remarks, the situation would be completely different if the ratification process were interrupted. In that case, the treaty could probably not be resuscitated. A ratification strike is what sank the constitutional treaty.

The man worries about the eurosceptic Czech government, which may be tempted to follow the Irish. And, he says, it would also be a mistake to take Swedish ratification for granted. But on balance he expects a 26-to-1 ratification score at the end of the year.

Then the pressure is on Ireland. One idea this man has is another referendum, but rigged in the same way of the last Lisbon vote. He suggests a question: "Do you want to remain in the EU on the basis of the Lisbon treaty?" thus forcing voters to make the choice between accepting the treaty or leaving the EU.

In the event that the Irish government refused to hold a second referendum, though, there would be "a frantic discussion about enforcing the Lisbon treaty without the Irish." This might appear to be in contravention of European law, writes the man:

But then again, European law may not be quite as predictable as you may think. It is not enforced by pundits, but by an often unpredictable court. My hunch is that if the 26 member states really wanted to do this, they would find a legal way.

So, he concludes, "the treaty of Lisbon will be implemented one way or the other, but only if the other 26 countries continue to ratify. Otherwise, all bets are off." And, to deal with the Irish, the strategy most likely to be successful from the perspective of the rest of the EU is to play hardball. This is plan B.

That is the authentic voice of the EU. Forget David Miliband and his blathering about there being no question of "bulldozing" Ireland into voting again on the EU Treaty. He is a bit player in this drama, and has yet to get his instructions from the EU foreign ministers' meeting tomorrow.

But, so far, he is following the line – Britain must ratify and, like a good and faithful servant, little Miliband is ensuring that his master's voice is obeyed.

COMMENTS (Irish referendum thread)

Those irrational Irish

"Citizens are transmitting signals of fear and uncertainty," says Giulio Tremonti, Italy's finance minister. "You can say it's not rational, but we need to react because they are signs of difficulties with the democratic process."

You mean because they voted "no"?

COMMENT THREAD

A cautionary tale ...

The "colleagues" may think their "project" will go on for ever. But nothing lasts.

They didn't see it coming

One of the small mysteries of the Irish referendum is why, on the evening before the count, the bookmaker Paddy Power PLC paid out more than €180,000 in winning bets to people who wagered on a "yes" victory, with a spokeswoman for the company, Sharon McHugh, saying the company had decided a "yes" appeared the likely outcome.

What may have been overlooked, though - although it was reported on our forum - was an (unpublished) exit poll of unknown origin which forecast a victory for the "yes" side, giving them a 54-46 percent margin.

This may now have greater significance than we thought at the time, as the Irish Independent is running a story today, suggesting that the Dublin government simply did not see this coming.

Headed, "Cowen disaster: little authority and no leadership", with the strap, "'People were as mad as hell' and politicians didn't realise it", it tells us that the "people's protest … has plunged the Government, already beset by economic free fall, into its biggest political crisis in decades." It then adds: "The painful rejection of the Taoiseach Brian Cowen has focused attention on what is being described as the 'disconnect' between the political establishment and the people."

The general tenor of the piece is that the political establishment has remained "in a state of anger, but mainly confusion," with "former Labour leader", Pat Rabbitte, cited as saying: "A very great many people don't trust the political class. They are in a very cranky mood…" (an excellent analysis here from Hibernia Girl).

Much the same comes from the Irish Times which considers the referendum result "an unmitigated disaster" for the new Taoiseach. "The people have refused to accept his leadership on the most important issue facing the country," the paper says, venturing that: "Recovering from that blow to his prestige will be difficult, if not impossible."

Also pointed up is the "big difference" between the result of this referendum and the first one on the Nice Treaty, "which was also lost". On that occasion complacency led many of the "yes" voters to stay at home and the low turnout contributed to the defeat.

The Irish government then got a deal allowing it to add a declaration to the treaty stating Ireland's position. That enabled it to be put to the people again and the answer was "yes".

This time around the turnout was higher and there is clearly no silent majority lurking out there to vote "yes". The other part of the equation, says the paper, is that there is no one clear reason for the "no" vote and therefore no obvious declaration or protocol that could be attached to the treaty to enable it to be put to the people again.

All this makes you wonder what messages Cowen was giving his masters in Brussels before the result was declared, and what story he is telling them now. There seems to be no clear-cut narrative which the "colleagues" can run.

Certainly, the big blue machine in Brussels does not seem to be holding the line as well as one might expect. More particularly, Sarkozy – next holder of the EU presidency and the man who is going to have to "rescue" the treaty – does not seem to have rallied his own ministers behind a single, coherent "line".

Somewhat "off-message" is his own economy minister, Christine Lagarde. From Reuters via The Guardian she is conveying "strong hopes" that the European Union will soon have another treaty on reforms to replace one rejected by Irish voters.

The fact that Lagarde was speaking from a seminar on Asian integration in South Korea may have something to do with this. At that distance, she may be out of the loop. But it hardly helps the image of a co-ordinated front when she is telling reporters that she is "absolutely certain" there would be another Lisbon or some other agreement on reforms.

Even the German politicos seem to be fraying at the edges. Interior minister Wolfgang Schaeuble is reported by Deutsche Welle as calling for "more transparency" in the EU, also proposing direct election of the EU commission president.

Nevertheless, the general line is holding, with Schaeuble declaring: "Of course we have to take the Irish referendum seriously. But a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans." Chillingly, he adds: "I am quite sure that we have a clear majority in favour of the continuation of the process of European unification."

This man should be on British TV. Phrases like "European unification" from the mouth of a German politician - one not known for his "liberal" tendencies - would have even the Europhiliacs running for cover. As it is, the focus remains on the Irish and, for the moment, their political classes seem all at sea.

COMMENTS Irish referendum thread

Noise

Given a choice, it would have been nice to break away from the aftermath of the Irish referendum. But, with papers full of it today, and barely anything else reported on the EU front, there is no escaping it – especially as Booker devotes the larger part of his column to an analysis.

In coming days, he writes, we shall see the degrading spectacle of the EU's political class wheeling out their long-prepared formula for ignoring the Irish verdict, and imposing their constitution-by-any-other-name regardless. The European project will be revealed for what it has been all along: a mighty system of state power, run by the political class with lofty contempt for the people it rules.

However, as I ventured in my last post, on this subject, there is going to be a great deal of "noise", which will blur the picture, obfuscate and confuse rather than enlighten.

A good example of this is the single newspaper, The Sunday Times, which manages two mutually contradictory headlines: "Britain presses on with Lisbon ratification" and "No 10 admits treaty is finished".

When that second story also reports that, "In the short term, Brown will press ahead with Britain's own ratification process," thus inherently contradicting its own claim, it is evident that the paper is all over the place and has nothing useful to offer.

Despite that, the leader is staunchly written, with the title: "Contempt for democracy". That is helpful because it cements in precisely the message that should apply to this corrupt construct, the European Union. As for the content of the leader, don't bother reading it. It is as incoherent as the news pieces.

Nevertheless, whether the "colleagues" are successful or not in ramming their treaty though, things will never be the same. In that sense, the Irish referendum has been valuable. It shows the "colleagues" as the power-grabbing fanatics that they really are. Merely the number of comments on the online stories, and their tone, demonstrates that the EU has been seriously damaged.

That much is also evident from the sheer volume of coverage, which has now grown to a torrent, Google News at one time registering over 7,000 stories on the issue. The EU is suddenly pinned in the spotlight and, as the heads of states and governments gather for their European Council on Thursday, every move they make will be being watched.

The one thing we can guarantee then is that the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen (pictured), is in for an interesting time. Papers like The Guardian are going for the "soap opera" with reports that he is in for a major clash with the "colleagues" after "senior strategists in the Republic's ruling party decided against a second referendum."

The Independent takes a similar line but another referendum, we have already suggested, was never on the cards. More likely, talk of a rift is largely theatre, partly aimed at keeping the media chattering and missing the main points – not least that Cowen is at one with the "colleagues" in wanting the treaty to go through.

Howsoever, even with the media in full flight, we stand by our analysis, and fully expect our predicted game plan to be rolled out. We can, though, build in one proviso. With the glare of the media spotlight so intense, some of the "colleagues" may crack under the pressure and break ranks. There is just a chance that the best laid plans of mice and commissioners might fall apart.

COMMENT THREAD (Irish referendum thread)