It should be called the Treaty of Dublin!

I’ll concede one point to the ‘No’ side; there isn’t an awful lot of difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the original EU Constitutional Treaty that was finalised in the first half of 2004. Whereas I don’t believe that we can extrapolate from the results of certain votes taken on the constitutional treaty and assume that the same outcomes would be obtained with the Lisbon Treaty, nevertheless much of what was there before still remains.

It had been hoped that the final text of the EU Constitutional Treaty would have been agreed in the latter half of 2003. The Italians assumed presidency of the European Union during those six months so this task fell to their clownish Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi.

Berlusconi’s presidency of the EU between July and December 2003 was probably one of the worst ever. Far from seeking to belie the misgivings that many people – especially on the left – in Europe had about him, Signor Berlusconi started off by comparing a German MEP to a concentration camp guard and things went rapidly down hill from there. All in all, by the end of December, little had been resolved.

Moreover, relations between some of the larger members (in particular France and Gemany on the one hand and Spain and Poland on the other) had turned quite sour and positions over issues such as voting rights had become very entrenched. The Italians’ failure to pre-empt the difficulties that would arise with regard to the decision making rules and Berlusconi’s farcical claim to have a “secret” compromise formula up his sleeve that turned out to be just hot air contributed to the almost universal air of irritation.

So, for the country that had to pick up the pieces, as it were, it wasn’t just a matter of resolving outstanding points of difference between the various member countries. The following six months would require a lot gentle talking to the great and good of Europe to ease them away from the ingrained negotiating points they had taken up in the acrimonious atmosphere of the Brussels summit. As luck would have it, the country stepping into the hot seat was Ireland.

Of course, the Irish had held the EU presidency on a number of occasions before since their first period of stewardship in 1975. Such was the standing of the country in those days that the French were deeply apprehensive about the Irish taking on such a role and indeed had a Plan B in reserve should the Irish Presidency break down during the six months. Such misgivings proved to be utterly unfounded and indeed, this and subsequent presidencies proved to be very successful and the ability of (what was then) the second smallest member to host them earned a lot of goodwill for Ireland on the European stage. However, there was no doubt that this was going to be the biggest test yet for Irish diplomacy.

The Irish started by lowering expectations, stating that they could only do “all within [their] powers to advance the work of the IGC” (Inter-governmental Conference). Following that, there was a period of bilateral meetings when Bertie Ahern travelled to all other EU capitals where – away from the cameras and microphones – leaders in general proved to be more amenable to compromise than they had been. As one commentator remarked, ‘Ireland’s quiet diplomacy contrasted neatly with the bombastic style of the Italian president-in-office.”

The willingness of the Irish to work hand in hand with the main EU institutions such as the Commission and the European Parliament (EP) also ensured that pitfalls were identified well in advance. By contrast – as mentioned above – the Italians couldn’t have got off to a worst start with the EP! Later on, attempts by the Italian Presidency to curb the powers of the parliament vis-à-vis the EU budget was viewed very dimly by MEPs.

For what appeared to be largely domestic reasons, relations with the European Commission bordered on poisonous. Silvio Berlusconi and EU Commission President Romano Prodi had ‘history’ from their country’s political scene and the end result was that the EU presidency became simply an extension of ongoing conflicts on the home front.

Ireland had, however, built up a store of goodwill over the years and had a reputation for not using its presidencies to force its own agenda. This was in sharp contrast to the Italians who went on diplomatic solo runs with regard to Chechnya and Israel and outraged smaller members and the EU Commission by taking a partial position on the Stability and Growth Pact (dealing with such matters as governments’ budget deficits). Since Italy was one of the least compliant countries, it stood to gain hugely if the rules were not enforced.

To be fair, the crucial part the Irish had played at the European Convention when the original treaty was being drafted probably meant that they had no major agendas to force anyway. The Irish were one of the most engaged delegations of all with opposition as well as government parties being heavily involved from an early stage. It was also the Irish who took the leading position amongst the smaller nations convening weekly meetings of these 16 countries to ensure that the larger states would not dominate events.

Giscard d’Estaing has been often cited as a bête noire for ‘no’ campaigners but he met his match in John Bruton, Ireland’s representative at the Convention’s presidium. The Grand Old Man of French politics did have a tendency to try and dominate proceedings but he was regularly challenged (very often successfully) by Bruton. No doubt, it was Bruton’s performance that led to his being rewarded with the role of EU Ambassador to the United States later in 2004.

Most remarkably of all, the two major EU institutions (the Commission and the European Parliament) were both represented at the Convention by Irish people. EP President Pat Cox spoke for the MEPs while EC Secretary General David O’Sullivan was there for the European Commission. Incidentally, he has since been succeeded in this key role by another Irish person, Catherine Day.

By June 2004, as the end of the Irish presidency loomed, it was clear the work had been done and agreement would be reached. Given that the treaty was subsequently rejected by French and Dutch voters, it is easy to forget the air of euphoria and the praise lavished on the Irish as a result of the success. EU politicians and the international media were unsparing in their plaudits.

“In the six whirlwind months it held the European Union presidency, Ireland hopped nimbly from success to success - welcoming 10 more states, agreeing on the bloc's first constitution and soothing EU-US tensions over Iraq”, said the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Tagesspiegel was even more fulsome: “The Winner's Name is Bertie - How the EU Constitution Compromise succeeded thanks to a crafty Irish Presidency”

…..as were their compatriots in Welt am Sonntag: “That the summit succeeded this time was clearly the merit of Irish PM Bertie […..]. During Friday he had tirelessly presented one compromise paper after the other, had taken out phrases, added words and dashes.”

“Canny pragmatism proved vital”, agreed The Guardian. “And it helped that he came from Ireland, the glittering Celtic success story of European integration.” “Ireland's presidency will be remembered for successfully steering through the passage of the EU constitution and presiding over the entry of 10 new countries into the union on May 1.” opined Agence France Presse.

“The Brussels summit will be remembered for its delivery on a constitution that was killed by a bitter row over voting rights six months ago and then resurrected under the skilful presidency of Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern” said Reuters.

Even the Arab world got wind of the story with Al-Jazeera telling its viewers that “In shepherding the EU to a deal on its first constitution, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern may have pulled off an audacious coup which will be remembered as a historic step forward for the continent.”

The leading lights on the EU scene didn’t allow any personal envy get in the way in their comments. “You have been the engine of everything that has happened in the past few months. The Irish presidency will live in our memory as a great presidency. [……]. Congratulations” said Javier Solana.

These sentiments were echoed by Romano Prodi: “I'd like to take my hat off to Bertie . . . Bertie has enormous capacities. He has been able to guide the Union to agreement and indeed to unanimity on issues many believed would be impossible. […..]The Irish Presidency is one we will long remember.”

…..and Gerhard Schroder:
“Without the Presidency's decisiveness, the result would not have been possible.”

Almost four years one from that heady June Friday night in the Belgian capital when 24 heads of state gave the Irish Presidency a standing ovation, the atmosphere – through no fault of the Irish - is somewhat less ecstatic. Yet, as Garret Fitzgerald says, “If there was ever an international treaty that bears the stamp of Irish negotiating skills and is designed to serve Irish interests, then this surely is that document.”