Irish Lisbon guarantees raise questions
By Honor Mahony
Ireland is busy working on legal wording to make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable to Irish voters, but its EU partners have raised concerns about the scope of the texts and some impatience at the pace of the work.
Last week, officials from Dublin met representatives from the 26 other member states to shed some light on what kind of wording Ireland is looking for in order to ensure the greatest chance that its citizens will vote "Yes" the second referendum on the treaty, scheduled for autumn.
Join EUobserver today
Get the EU news that really matters
Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.
Choose your plan
... or subscribe as a group
Already a member?
While other capitals have demonstrated goodwill and understanding towards Dublin's situation, they also want to make sure the Irish do not end up inadvertently opening other cans of worms, which red-faced governments would then have to defend in their own parliaments.
The greatest concern, expressed by a number of diplomats spoken to by EUobserver, is to keep the texts as "Irish specific" as possible.
This should not be too difficult for the declarations guaranteeing tax sovereignty, the country's neutrality and on family and ethical issues - areas seen as contributing to Irish No vote last June.
But the reason for the wariness among other capitals is that these texts will take the form of legally-binding protocols, which will be attached to the first legal vehicle available to get them ratified. At the moment, the talk is of Croatia's accession treaty, which will have to pass through all 27 parliaments of the EU.
"We want to make sure it is very specific to Ireland, so we do not get asked why we haven't got guarantees on certain issues," said one diplomat.
Another diplomat from another country said: "What worries us is that our ratification will still stand."
All countries, except Ireland, have ratified the treaty via their parliaments. But if the scope of Ireland's declaration is too wide, then it could result in calls for a re-ratification. This is said to be of particular concern for Britain, but also of several others.
Meanwhile, a non-binding declaration on workers' rights is causing as much wariness among member states, some of whom are seeking to make sure it does not come down too much in favour of employee rights to the detriment of the internal market.
"We want to make sure it reflects the balance of the Treaty," said a diplomat from a large country.
In addition, there is also some bemusement among some diplomats that Ireland, seen as one of the most pro-market EU member states, should now be making an extra declaration concerning workers' rights.
For its part, given the sensitivities of the topic and how much political capital Dublin is risking on the text, Ireland has not yet put pen to paper. Unfortunate wording, if leaked, is hard to remove from the public consciousness once out.
But this has led to some frustration, with EU ambassadors expected to try and informally wrap up the text in just one week's time. "We would very much appreciate to get some clarity. We have only been briefed orally," said a diplomat.
"The wording could raise real issues ... re-ratification is one of the problems we definitely don't want," he continued, with his country seen as one of the less pro-EU states.
The texts will be discussed by foreign ministers on 15 June before going being tabled at an EU leaders' summit three days later. Ireland is hoping to get the texts signed off at the summit with as little ceremony as possible.
Once the wording is cleared, Dublin is expected to announce the referendum date soon afterwards. It is hoping the texts, the guarantee that each member state is entitled to have an EU commissioner as well as the general unease that the economic crisis has caused among Irish citizens will swing the vote to a "Yes" this time round.
But, admits an Irish official, "a lot of work is still to be done."