http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/world/europe/14ireland.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
======================

By EAMON QUINN and ALAN COWELL
Published: June 14, 2008

DUBLIN — In a significant setback for efforts to reform Europe’s unwieldy institutions, a senior Irish official said Friday that voters had rejected a revised European Union treaty designed to change the way the bloc governs itself and presents itself to the world.

If that outcome is confirmed in official results, it will mean that the 27-member bloc will be in turmoil, its latest attempt to reform stymied by less than one percent of its population of almost 500 million.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern declared on television: “It looks like this will be a ‘no’ vote. At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”

Speaking later on Irish radio he said: “We are in uncharted territory.”

Even though there was no final, official tally, Micheal Martin, the minister of foreign affairs, acknowledged: “Perhaps there is a disconnect between the European institution and its people that we need to reflect on.”

In France, senior officials insisted that, whatever the Irish outcome, other European countries must continue their procedures to approve the treaty.

“The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found,” Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French minister for European affairs, told LCI television. He did not specify what form this legal arrangement might take.

“We cannot take a country out of Europe that has been there for 35 years,” Mr. Jouyet added. “But we can find specific means of cooperation.”

The apparent defeat will present France with a major headache as it prepares to take over the rotating presidency of the European Union for six months on July 1.

<snipped>

http://counterpunch.org/browne06132008.html
===================

Weekend Edition
June 13-15, 2008

Irish Class War Delivers No Vote to EU
Ireland Shows the Way

By HARRY BROWNE

Dublin

In the midst of a growing economic crisis, Ireland’s urban working class and struggling rural people have united to deliver a blow to Europe’s ruling elite.

The defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in yesterday’s Irish referendum has tossed out years of efforts by the European Union to come up with new, “streamlined” procedures, and to get the increasingly unitary EU an (unelected) president and foreign minister.

The Treaty was itself a modest rewrite of the European Constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

As the counts came in from around the country today, the Irish people’s decision was, in the end, not even close. The momentum for a No vote displayed in last week’s opinion polls continued right through polling day. With a turnout bigger than in any previous Irish Euro-referendum, the electorate smashed expectations that a big vote would boost the Yes side and defied the advice of 95% of the country’s elected politicians, who supported the Treaty.

The politically disparate No campaign had rained blows from left and right, defending workers’ rights and defending low corporation tax, against privatization and against abortion; the Yes side could scarcely defend itself, let alone fight back.

Former Labour Party leader Pat Rabbitte today compared the plight of the Yes campaigner to playing a video game: “You pop the bad guy, two more pop up.”

The various No elements avoided arguing among themselves during the campaign, but the battle to claim the victory has now begun. All analysts agree, however, that as in the 2001 Nice Treaty referendum, Irish people’s concern about military neutrality and the growing militarization of the EU was crucial.

Many of the issues and energies in the Lisbon campaign have been addressed already in CounterPunch. The X factor in this result was the effect of the prevailing economic catastrophism: would voters take the conservative option of voting Yes to avoid the danger of deepening the crisis with political uncertainty? In the end it was the most at-risk sections of the population who delivered the most decisive No.

<snipped>