D-Day has arrived: the Irish are to voice their opinion, on 12 June, in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The results will only be known in the afternoon of the following day but, in the event of a ‘no’ vote, France and Germany have already announced a ‘joint reaction’.

The hypothesis of a rejection should not, in fact, be brushed aside, given that the latest polls show a very tight gap between the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps. If such were the case, the General Affairs Council, of 16 June in Luxembourg, would probably seize the issue before returning it to the agenda of the European Council, of 19 and 20 June in Brussels. The heads of state and government could then decide to give a mandate to the future French Presidency, which will take over the reins of the EU on 1 July, in order for it to find a solution. The French would then need to review their six-month programme and redirect their priorities. Until now, these have focused on immigration, defence, the energy-climate change package and agriculture. The new institutional crisis would top these priorities.

A joint initiative could then spring from France and Germany, according to President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel, who headed a council of ministers meeting, on 9 June in Bavaria. “We all hope there will be a ‘yes’, but you can anticipate a joint Franco-German reaction, whatever the outcome of the vote,” declared Merkel to the press. As for the French head of state, he considered that a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would be a problem for the whole of Europe. “It’s up to the Irish to decide. But what has been decided with Mrs Merkel is that, whatever happens, there will be a Franco-German reaction,” he confirmed.

SEVERAL SCENARIOS

France, which is at the origin of the 2005 institutional crisis with its rejection of the EU Constitution (followed by the Netherlands), would find itself responsible for unblocking the situation. This is a poisoned chalice for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had bragged about having relaunched Europe with his plan for a ‘mini treaty’.

The two countries could thus propose continuing the ratification process in the remaining eleven member states, to avoid reducing to nothing eight years of negotiations. This is what the French Foreign Affairs Minister, Bernard Kouchner, appeared to affirm, on 9 June, on RTLradio, by declaring that, as per the first Irish ‘no’ vote to the Nice Treaty, it is necessary to keep trying. However, the situation is not the same as in 2001, when the Irish finally voted again a year later on an amended text, leaning towards a ‘yes’ vote. Because today Ireland has nothing to negotiate, having already obtained everything it wanted at the European Council in June 2007. The treaty could well be adjusted a little, but the risk of a new rejection would remain. Furthermore, if the ratifications were to continue despite an Irish ‘no’ vote, it is not certain whether the other member states that have not yet ratified the treaty would quietly toe the line. The United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, for example, could be tempted to abandon their ratification process as in 2005.

The other alternative would be to completely interrupt the ratification procedure in the EU and maintain the status quo with the Nice Treaty, which would mean maintaining the heavy mechanisms and imperfections of that text. It is highly likely that some member states will then enter into strengthened cooperation to move forward with those that wish to do so. A reflection would then take place on the legitimacy of the EU and its democratic deficit.

Lastly, two other – albeit rather unlikely – outcomes can also be envisaged. The first would be a renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty, although this text is already the result of a renegotiation of the aborted Constitution project. The second would be Ireland’s partial withdrawal from the EU (a total withdrawal is not anticipated by the current treaties), but this small country of four million inhabitants does not appear to want to go that far.