Back to Gideon RachmanThs time last year, I was about to head off to Brussels to an EU summit. The top item on the agenda was an effort to rescue the European Union constitution, after defeats in the French and Dutch referendums. The result was the document that became known as the Lisbon Treaty.Now I am about to head off to Brussels for another EU crisis summit - this time designed to rescue the Lisbon Treaty after its defeat in the Irish referendum.
These people never learn. But then that is why they can keep going. They are like the proverbial goldfish, endlessly circling their bowl - and constantly surprised and delighted by the view.
Last year, EU leaders seemed to have decided that the problem with the constitution was that it was far too easy to understand - and therefore frightening to the voters. As I wrote at the time, the Lisbon Treaty was a quite deliberate effort to obscure what was being done - and therefore to bore voters and parliaments into submission.
Now that the Irish have nonetheless rejected Lisbon, a new conventional wisdom is forming - the problem with the treaty is that it is too difficult to understand. Julian Gough, an Irish novelist, nicely captures the bafflement of the average Irish voter confronted with this monstrously dull document.
Attention will now turn to what kind of bribes and special protocols might be offered to the Irish to persuade them to change their minds. Most of the ideas doing the rounds are to do with guarantees about Irish sovereignty over defence or tax. But Gough has a better idea:
“My feeling, for what it’s worth, is that they should have put in a paragraph promising us all an icecream if we voted yes. At least that would have been something concrete that we could have visualised. It would have stood out a mile, for its clarity and lack of ambiguity, in the Irish Referendum Commission’s summary of the Treaty. And given that the weather was fairly good on the day of the vote, it might well have swung the referendum.”
Well, it must be worth a try. Nothing else has worked.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.