Once again, as European leaders try desperately to refocus their efforts on practical matters that concern the lives of citizens (fuel and food prices, immigration and crime) the very same citizens thwart them by rejecting the latest reform tool kit to enable a more effective response to these concerns. Though everyone in Brussels was keen to approve the Lisbon Treaty and move on - especially the French who had high ambitions for their Presidency - it seems that we will be pondering the fate of the Lisbon Treaty for at least another year.

It is too soon to predict an outcome from the latest crisis but, historically, the European Union only seems to make progress when seeking solutions to crisis situations. Perhaps the problem with the defunct Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is that we allowed ourselves the luxury of too much reflection and preparation (almost seven years since the Laeken Council) without convincing the public of the urgent need for change.

The world has changed significantly since 2001, not least in the concerns over international terrorism and climate change, two issues where the capacity of member states to act alone is clearly limited. So it does make sense to improve the coordination and efficiency of foreign policy priorities across 27 member states and agree a common strategy for global climate talks to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Merging the Council and Commission foreign policy supremos into one role, creating a common external action service and adopting a double majority voting system in Council would certainly have brought some improvements. But it is not surprising that such institutional changes failed to ignite passions across Ireland on 12 June. People are concerned about the price of petrol and pasta but not about the internal workings of the EU institutions.

There are many reasons for the Irish ‘no’ vote, but none of them question the legitimacy of the European Union to tackle these pressing global issues. The case for the Lisbon Treaty was poorly made and the opponents successfully played on people’s fears to persuade them to reject the reforms in favour of something else - without ever stating what. The ‘no’ vote has plunged the EU into considerable difficulty and further introspection, at least as serious as that over the Constitution three years ago. But it will also have put in jeopardy the goodwill and reputation that Ireland has enjoyed in recent years in the EU as the model of economic growth and rejuvenation.

That is not to suggest that the sky will now fall on our heads. It won’t. Even without the Lisbon Treaty the EU would still continue to function, albeit with less efficiency as it takes on these new challenges. That is the paradox of the ‘no’ vote. Irish voters rejected the very reforms designed to address the problems of EU remoteness and bureaucracy.

In the meantime, we cannot sit on our hands and wait for a solution to the Irish question. The French Presidency priorities remain the same; finalising the climate change package, addressing immigration through a comprehensive immigration and asylum pact, developing the nascent European Security and Defence Policy and making proposals for the long-term reform and sustainability of European agriculture policy.

The Commission’s climate change package, launched in January this year, needs to be wrapped up before the European Parliament elections next summer if the EU is to have a coherent and ambitious mandate for the December 2009 Copenhagen talks on the successor to Kyoto. The energy package, including a new proposal on renewables, should be completed in a similar timeframe. Both will raise some highly sensitive and potentially divisive issues for member states. France will need to deploy the full armoury of diplomacy and pressure to achieve agreement over the next six months. Nicolas Sarkozy may have to take a leaf out of Angela Merkel’s book if he wants to make a success of his first turn at running the EU.

France will also inherit the explosive cocktail of rocketing fuel prices at home and rising food prices that are causing hardship and hunger in many developing countries. The financial crisis and credit crunch resulting from the US subprime housing market have combined to create what some have dubbed the ‘perfect storm’. It would be easy to give in to populism and slash fuel taxes across the board to alleviate the short-term pressure but the risk is that this would have the converse effect of further stimulating demand and pushing prices up even further.

In light of the Irish referendum, signs that the French Presidency wishes to tackle the lack of awareness or sympathy of their citizens with Europe through a series of regional debates, at least in France, is a positive move that deserves support and emulation elsewhere. The French ‘non’ to the Constitution clearly came as a rude wake-up call to the political establishment in France. It is poetic justice that they now have the task of formulating a response to a similar reaction from the Irish. Brian Cowen now needs to embark, belatedly, on a similar exercise in communication in his own country since most Irish voters confessed, in a Flash Eurobarometer poll conducted by Gallup in the days after the referendum, that their main objection to the Lisbon Treaty was lack of information.

That is the paradox of the ‘no’ vote. Irish voters rejected the very reforms designed to address the problems of EU remoteness and bureaucracy