For the Middle East it is probably bad news that the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty in their referendum Thursday. Had the treaty stayed on course for ratification by all 27 EU member states, Brussels would have acquired a single foreign policy brief, so that in theory Europe could have spoken with one voice on world affairs.
The reality of course would have been that it would probably have been years before a EU foreign minister would really have spoken for Europe. The foreign chancelleries will, when the time does come, resist the loss of their power and influence, even as they continue to pay lip service to an ever more integrated Europe. Nor will governments willingly sacrifice their power to make unilateral deals with other states.
But in any event the project of a new EU constitution - which is what the Lisbon Treaty was in all but name - is now on hold. According to all the advice before the Irish voted, unless all member states ratified, the treaty failed. "There is no Plan B", said the European Commission. Yet no sooner had the Irish expressed their views than Plan B was being revealed.
The British government, elected on a promise to hold its own EU referendum, which it has ditched, on the grounds that Lisbon was not a constitution, announced it would complete the parliamentary ratification process. The German and French governments jointly called for the ratification to be completed by other EU parliaments - only the Irish were constitutionally bound to hold a referendum.
This is dangerous stuff. The laudable long-term goal of a united Europe is being driven too hard by Euro enthusiasts. The risk is that EU citizens, already remote from, and disenchanted by, an expensive, inefficient and increasingly intrusive Brussels bureaucracy will begin to protest the loss of their national power.
The French and Dutch No referenda on the first attempt to pass a EU constitution demonstrate that EU politicians are too often not carrying their voters with them. Thus the whole future of a united Europe is being endangered.
The economic union to a large degree evolved. The monetary union was imposed and even though, thanks to a weak dollar, the euro is currently strong, the contradictions of the disparate economic performances of euro countries such as Greece and Italy compared with Germany or Holland have still not been addressed and could yet wreck the currency. If the Irish vote serves to rein in the pace of union, and allows evolution rather than revolution in the way that the EU works, the body will ultimately be the stronger. A EU foreign ministry created in ten, or even 20 years time when EU citizens recognize the need for such an institution, will be much stronger than any such entity cobbled together by Euro enthusiasts in the teeth of the Irish "No" vote. Therefore rather than breaking their own guidelines, in the wake of the Irish vote, the EU must now make slow but sure and popular progress toward unity.
