´óÏó´«Ã½

It was a long Friday the 13th.

The last out of the way, we wearily made our way back home from Dublin Castle, though Temple Bar, the area of Dublin filled with clubs and bars.

A group of young men, pints in hand, tattoos on their necks, having a quick fag outside a Chinese restaurant wanted to shout "No, to Lisbon!" into our camera. Too late, the day was done.

One of them asked, "Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we'd voted 'Yes'?"

This is, of course, why many politicians hate referendums. People will vote on many issues, some nothing to do with the issue at hand, some pure fantasy.

Ireland's worries?

This means it is almost impossible to answer the question posed by some who want to press ahead with Lisbon. Politicians who argue that ratification should continue say a second vote is possible. They say, "We have to find out what worries the Irish had, and deal with them." This is too rational by half.

The Irish were worried by many things? There were many things, some true, some not, some specific, some very general.

Referendums may be a bad way of dealing with complex legal treaties, but this vote was about the European Union. No-one can argue that this was a protest against the Irish government - Brian Cowen's poll ratings were sky high when he

Some voted about specific issues, like abortion and taxation. Some voted against the general drift of the European Union. But many I spoke to didn't understand the treaty.

Unsexy debates

Some argue that means Lisbon is awful, by definition. On Friday I took part in a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 5Live discussion with the editor of the Irish who argued it was difficult to understand, and therefore nonsense and so people were right to vote against it.

I think this line of logic is hard to sustain. Most treaties, most diplomatic agreements, and indeed most proposed laws have to be written in complex legal language. They are, by their very nature, difficult for even specialists to understand. If you can't boil it down to a simple headline, then it is very difficult for busy people with busy lives to engage in the arguments.

Purely in a sprit of fantasy politics, I make the suggestion of offering a string of referendums before negotiations on single issues. Are you in favour of an EU foreign minister? EU embassies? Fewer commissioners? A change to the voting system? A president for the

These may not be the sexiest debates to have over a pint, but you can discuss them sensibly. Then a government would know where its red lines were.

It will die

But back to reality. Foreign ministers will and start talking about "What next?". So they will first ask "What does Ireland want?"

If the answer is, "Not a second referendum", then there will be more talk about a two-speed Europe. I read a fair amount of stuff in newspapers about going ahead as a group of 26 without Ireland. They may be right if a way can be found of carrying on with most countries operating under Lisbon rules, with Ireland trailing behind.

But none of my sources think this is either sensible or possible. You can opt out of the euro - you can't opt out of a voting system, or the number of commissioners.

My hunch (and it is an informed guess, I won't eat my hat or beat myself up if I turn out to be wrong ) hasn't changed: Lisbon may not be dead, but it will die.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?