MEDIA REACTION:IRELAND'S REJECTION of the Lisbon Treaty was front-page news in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and was the main international story in other US papers, including the Washington Post.
"The defeat of the treaty . . . was the result of a highly organised No campaign that had played to Irish voters' deepest visceral fears about the European Union. For all its benefits, many people in Ireland and in Europe feel that the Union is remote, undemocratic and ever more inclined to strip its smaller members of the right to make their own laws.
"To take effect, the treaty must be ratified by all 27 members of the European Union. So the defeat by a single country . . . has the potential effect of stopping the whole thing cold," the New York Times report said.
In an editorial headlined "An Irish Education", the Wall Street Journal welcomed the vote as a "blow for democracy" in Europe.
"There will be hand-wringing from those who dream of one EU superstate not under God, and jubilation from those who'd like to kill the entire project. Both emotions are exaggerated. The current arrangements are satisfactory for the EU to function, and the Lisbon Treaty won't be missed. The lesson from Ireland is that European politicians need to sell their grand plans in the open, not via stealth, especially when those plans dilute national sovereignty . . . The Irish have previously shown Europe how to solve some of those economic problems. They accepted the euro as a currency, using its efficiencies to attract capital and achieve a prosperity unknown in the country's long history. Now they have sent another mature lesson to Europe - namely, that the advantages of union do not also require ceding ... sovereignty to Brussels."
The conservative Washington Times agreed, declaring that the Irish had challenged a "very insulated, elite-driven expansion" of EU power but predicted that European leaders would try to ignore the referendum.
"Any political institution that aims for longevity must develop a healthy respect for the public will . . . The sad truth of the EU is that its leadership has never been willing to do this. Mr Barroso and allies try to avoid public input wherever possible, conducting end-runs around non-elite checks on their authority. They failed to learn the lessons of France and The Netherlands three years ago. This week they fail yet again. The EU will survive, as will the integrated European economy. The real casualt[y] this week [is] the credibility of those who made the direst of predictions on Wednesday but little more than 24 hours later were found pledging to carry on as if nothing had happened," the paper said.
Writing in the Washington Post conservative commentator Robert Kagan said the rejection of the treaty could accelerate Europe's slide into global irrelevance.
"I would much rather see Europe run the 21st century than Vladimir Putin's Russia or Hu Jintao's China. The danger of this latest blow to European confidence is that our allies, including Britain, could gradually sink into global irrelevance... Europe has started to settle into a role akin to the chorus of a Greek tragedy, endlessly commenting and pronouncing judgment on the actions of the protagonists - but with little or no effect on the outcome . . . And perhaps Europe - the Europe lacking in leadership, the Europe now lacking a new treaty - is the way it is because that's what the people really do want. If so, the 21st century, decidedly not run by Europe, will be a very tricky time for the US," he wrote.
