The World

Terrific piece by my colleague, Wolfgang Munchau, on Monday. Of course – I disagreed with every word of it. Unlike Wolfgang, I was glad that the Irish voted no to the Lisbon Treaty.

However – as a fellow columnist – I admired a splendid polemic. It had everything: anger, manic energy, a powerful argument, originality. But there was one point where Wolfgang lost me.

He wrote: “I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.”

Again, I admire the writing. The nostalgic in me thrills to the emphasis on “will” as a determining force in politics. I like the slightly sinister refusal to divulge the means by which Ireland and the Czech Republic will be forced out of the EU. (“We have ways of making you leave.”)

But I just think that Wolfgang is wrong. I don’t think there is a legal means to force a country to leave the EU against its will. Wolfman – if you are out there – please enlighten me. Readers, I welcome your views.

The other thing that struck me reading Wolfgang’s piece is that it is simply taken for granted that the Lisbon Treaty is essential. Indeed so essential that it is worth expelling two countries from the EU – and possibly provoking others like Britain and Poland to leave, in the process – to secure the treaty.

Lisbon’s most ardent supporters seem to be stuck arguing simultaneously that it is no big deal (and therefore there is no excuse for the Irish to say No) – and that it is essential. Surely, it can’t be both.

Certainly in Brussels over the weekend, I got the impression that the supporters of the treaty have forgotten why they want it in the first place – they just want it.

Yes, there are some innovations in the treaty – new voting systems, a charter of fundamental rights, more majority voting etc…But is it really worth breaking up the Union to secure Lisbon?

I can think of only two reasons, why the loss of Lisbon should excite such anger and determination. First, it doesn’t matter what the treaty does. It is just unacceptable for one small country to thwart the will of the political leaderships of the big countries. This is now about will.

The second reason could be that the treaty is crucial because it is the next stage in the drive for political union, which began with the Single European Act and continued with Maastricht and the creation of the Euro. Lisbon, in itself, is a disappointingly small step towards political union. But – if it is stopped – the whole process is stopped. And that is unacceptable.

Thinking about both reasons outlined above, I’m even more delighted that the Irish said No.