EU needs to find new forms of engagement

WORLD VIEW:'THE PRINCIPLES of democracy must be the threads that weave the fabric of the European Union." Brian Cowen's observation at the European Council in Brussels was part of a more general Government strategy to convince EU leaders that the Lisbon Treaty's rejection in Ireland is a challenge for all the member states and their leaders.

He underlined Ireland's strong engagement with the EU and emphasised how the referendum reveals more general popular concerns about its future direction.

The Taoiseach went on to say the "expression of a 'disconnect' between the citizens and Europe, its institutions and procedures, is also not unique to Ireland. The union is a sophisticated construction, with careful checks and balances to address diverse and sometimes conflicting goals. But this may also mean that to some of our citizens, Europe may appear to be a place of treaties and protocols, directives and regulations, instead of something that makes a meaningful and beneficial impact on people's lives. To the degree that that is so, we cannot be happy that our European project relies on limited levels of public understanding and engagement."

Whatever the outcome of the rejection over coming months this issue of democratic connection between governments, leaders and voters can and should remain in the foreground. That would help ensure the fabric endures and is built upon. But it is a demanding exercise to relate national and European levels of democratic engagement and make them relevant for a new generation of voters, few of whom understand or are engaged with the original purposes and inspirations for pooling sovereignty to ensure peace, security and prosperity.

Responses to the result elsewhere range from impatient dismissal of the ungrateful and self-absorbed Celtic Tiger and its cubs, through a determination that remaining ratifications will proceed, to a growing diplomatic and political realisation that others could easily stand in Brian Cowen's shoes and that it would be imprudent as well as short-sighted to isolate him.

There is an understandable conviction that more effective political outcomes - whether on Europe's international role as a multilateral actor in a more multipolar world where US power is declining and Asian powers are emerging, on climate change and energy, or on economic issues - are essential to demonstrate its benefits for citizens. The Yes campaign conspicuously failed to project such purposes positively during the campaign. In any new referendum following a 26-1 outcome they would have to feature more prominently, alongside Ireland's choice between inclusion or exclusion from reforms all other member states support.

Lisbon is, of course, partly designed to address that disconnection. It substantially empowers the European and national parliaments' right to scrutinise and vet legislation arising from greater use of majority voting, and makes executive decisions more transparent. Such provisions would depend on how seriously state executives and parliaments take them up, while many others could be introduced without the treaty or in addition to it. Next year's European elections will, under Lisbon, create a greater alignment between their results and the choice of European Commission president. But will national parties and governments encourage such a politicisation?

It should be remembered that the treaty's specific legal form was crafted after the referendum defeats in France and the Netherlands (and passage in Luxembourg). Its undeniable obscurity and inaccessibility have been much exaggerated, since when read in the consolidated version it is as comprehensible as other constitutional texts. But it was designed to avoid as many other referendums as possible, and the wider democratic scrutiny they engender.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Lisbon referendum, and they were many, there was such a public engagement. Cowen's address takes proper account of its preoccupations and the need to analyse them.

Alongside substantive issues he mentioned such as a common defence (which substantially affected womens' attitudes), workers' rights (there was a pronounced class dimension in the voting), or the loss of influence in the institutions (it looks as if keeping national commissioners, perhaps with rotating senior and junior portfolios, will be a substantial concession), there are contextual factors such as immigration, economic uncertainty, higher food prices, the credit crunch, the increases in fuel prices and more expensive mortgage payments.

Some kind of tipping point happened around the first Nice referendum in 2001, in terms of turnout and interest. The older narrative of European integration has not been renewed or replaced, notably among younger voters. This is the major challenge facing leaders here and probably elsewhere. It is best tackled by finding new ways to engage citizens in this two level system, in which national and European politics combine.