No to no, the referendum-free EU.

TELEGRAPH Blog   4.8.08   -Bruno Waterfield
No to no, the referendum-free EU

The consensus that there should be no more referendums, Irish or 
otherwise, seems to be growing as European Union types shut up shop 
for the summer. It has become clearer and clearer following June's 
Irish No, along with previous referendums rejections in France and 
the Netherlands, that Europe's political establishments can no longer 
carry people with them when it comes to the EU.

The latest contribution to the debate on how to proceed after 
Ireland's referendum rejection comes from Charles Grant and the 
Centre for European Reform, a think-tank with an outlook close to the 
Foreign Office. [=europhile ! -cs]  Mr Grant's "Three scenarios" are 
honest enough to admit that what ever happens - even if the Lisbon 
Treaty is buried - the substance will quickly be "salvaged".

In fact, Mr Grant's article would better be called "two scenarios", 
as outside a second Irish referendum "yes" (wishful thinking), two of 
his three options are essentially the same: "an attempt to salvage 
bits and pieces of the Lisbon treaty".

Like Foreign Office mandarins, Mr Grant argues that "the demise of 
the Lisbon treaty would not be a catastrophe...But Europeans would 
still be much better off with the Lisbon treaty".

True to EU officialdom, British diplomatic and Whitehall form, which 
involves doing it all behind the backs of voters, Mr Grant suggests 
the following: "EU governments would then try to salvage the few 
parts of the Lisbon treaty that could be implemented without its 
ratification."

This means extra justice powers and the creation of an EU diplomatic 
service - even without the creation of a European foreign minister. 
Before the Irish No, talks (denied by minister in the House of 
Commons) proposals were well advanced and could be quickly dusted 
off. What can not saved right away can be smuggled in with amending 
"Accession Treaty" as early as late 2009 or early 2010, when Croatia 
joins the EU.

"The EU governments could use the Croatian accession treaty - 
expected in a couple of years - to help their salvage operation. All 
accession treaties have to adjust EU voting rules, but they are not 
normally put to referendum. At the moment, France and Germany say 
they will block further enlargement until the Lisbon treaty is 
ratified. But that line would probably change if Croatian accession 
offered the chance to save parts of Lisbon. Evidently, the EU could 
not credibly use an accession treaty to transfer powers from the 
member-states to the EU, for example through more majority voting. 
But an accession treaty could introduce the 'double majority' voting 
rule and create the new High Representative."

"Such use of an accession treaty would be politically controversial, 
and EU leaders would haggle over the contents. But if Lisbon was 
dead, they would not want to negotiate a new treaty from scratch, and 
they would see the arrival of the Croats as an opportunity."

Plan C - for Croatia - was being discussed in early June, as noted 
here on this blog the day the Irish voted: "Ireland, like the rest of 
the Europe, does not hold referendums on EU enlargement treaties and 
with new protocol opt-outs Dublin may be able to get a new Accession 
Treaty past the Irish parliament without another popular vote".

Mr Grant is worth taking seriously. He has previous form. Even before 
the EU Constitution fell three years ago, he charted the approach for 
the Lisbon Treaty with uncanny precision.

Writing in the European edition of the Financial Times six days 
before the French referendum of 2005, Mr Grant predicted a new Treaty 
based on cleaning up existing treaties and keeping "key provisions of 
the Constitution".

"Most EU governments would wish to avoid further referendums and 
would ratify this by parliamentary vote. Eurosceptics would demand 
referendums, complaining that arrogant politicians were again 
building the EU behind the backs of the people. The governments 
should face down such demands, pointing out that the constitutional 
treaty and the overwhelming majority of its provisions had been 
abandoned. They should explain that the new mini-treaty was about 
technical adjustments, to make the EU work better, rather than 
transfers of new powers to the EU."

Mr Grant was spot on in May 2005, is he right again in August 2008?

"The response of the EU oligarchy and its political allies to the 
Irish people's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty shows that they are 
intent on occupying the moral low-ground," writes Frank Furedi, over 
on Spiked.

How low can they go?