The past two weeks saw the European Union become lost in philosophical musings over the meaning of a simple word. Stupefied by a not-that-unexpected, yet feared to the extent of self-denial, answer, the leaders of European powerhouses started delving into shades of the straightforward.

To some, the Irish “no” meant “maybe later”. To others, it meant “yes, but with some touches here and there”. The third thought of it as a  polite way of requesting concessions. As a whole, most European politicians chose to believe that the “no” could, more or less easily, be transformed into a “yes”. Few, if any, actually recognised it for what it was, namely a plain and unequivocal rejection.

The fact that on June 12 the Irish decided they did not want their country to ratify the Lisbon Treaty came as a cold shower to the European functionaries, who had put in a lot of effort in coming up with a document that would upgrade the bloc’s institutions and streamline decision-making given its expansion by 12 member states since 2004. It was obvious that after the accession of 10 new countries in 2004 and two more in 2007, EU bodies needed reforming so as to meet the expectations of millions of new European citizens for efficient, transparent and democratic governance, especially after the fiasco of the European constitution in 2005.

That all 27 member states ratify it is a prerequisite for the reform treaty to enter into force. Therefore, Ireland’s rejection simply meant it would not become effective. This, however, turned out to be a notion European leaders refused to believe. Shortly after it became known that more than 53 per cent of the Irish had voted against the ratification of the document, European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso declared it “not dead”. He urged the countries that had still not ratified it to continue with the process, in spite of the Irish “no”, which clearly showed the bloc would look for ways to go around that less-than-unfavourable outcome. Irish prime minister Brian Cowen, found himself in a place no politician would like to be. On the one hand, he had to show respect for the decision of his people. On the other hand, he had to liaise with his European colleagues, infuriated by the fact that a country whose population amounted to less than one per cent of the total of 490 million European citizens, single-handedly plunged the bloc into a severe crisis and a future full of uncertainty. Reuters quoted Cowen as saying that the vote was “a source of disappointment to my colleagues in government and to me”. He added, however, that “in a democracy, the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box is sovereign. The government accepts and respects the verdict of the Irish people.”

“The result does bring about considerable uncertainty and a difficult situation. There is no quick fix,” Cowen said. “We need to pause to observe what has happened and why, and to consult widely at home and with our European partners.”

And consultations did begin, first on June 16 when EU’s foreign ministers gathered for a General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting, and later, when the heads of state and government met at the June 19-20 European Council session. The European Council hosted stormy discussions. “No Lisbon, no enlargement,” French president Nicolas Sarkozy said, fully backed by German chancellor Angela Merkel. “I would find it very strange for a Europe of 27 [countries] that has trouble agreeing on workable institutions to agree on adding a 28th, a 29th, a 30th, a 31st, which would definitely make things worse,” he added, as quoted by Reuters.

In Bulgaria, a number of high-ranking officials voiced their hopes that the Lisbon Treaty could be revived. “We regret the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ratification, which now engages us to work with even more diligence to bring the EU and its institutions closer to European citizens. We are confident that the Lisbon Treaty creates the necessary conditions for the EU to meet public expectations,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Dimitar Tsanchev said in a media statement, re-iterating the country’s commitment to the EU reform process.

Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev told Bulgarian media in Brussels that the result of the Irish referendum was favourable neither for the EU, nor for the further ratification process.

The European Council came to no concrete decision on how to proceed, but decided to discuss the matter again at its next session in October. It agreed that, meanwhile, the Irish cabinet “will actively consult, both internally and with the other member states, in order to suggest a common way forward”. The European Council also noted that 19 member states had ratified the Lisbon Treaty and that the ratification process in the remaining eight will continue. Britain ratified it just hours before the European Council session began on June 19 in an act meant to boost keeping the treaty up and running. However, the Czech Republic and Poland, who are also included in the list of 19, can turn out problematic. In Poland, parliament approved the treaty in April, but president Lech Kaczynski has been dawdling over signing it. In the Czech Republic, the constitutional court has to rule on whether the treaty clashes with the constitution before it can be ratified, a fact that has been specifically noted in the European Council conclusions.

In the meantime, different scenarios have been drawn up for the path ahead. One of them is that the referendum in Ireland be repeated at a later point, after organising a massive campaign in favour of the treaty. Another is that the treaty be supplemented by an annex or a protocol that will ease the Irish worries regarding the document. These include fears that the treaty will interfere with Ireland’s sovereignty, neutrality and will play down the role of the small states within the EU. Other scenarios even envisage imposing sanctions on the country.

It is clear though that most European officials have failed to realise that although Ireland lacks the resources or the potential of the major European powers, the Irish “no” is something to be respected, rather than fiercely denounced a treachery. The EU undoubtedly needs reform, but reform in compliance with its own rules, rather than reform achieved by searching ways to go around them.