It is puzzling that so many commentators are so anxious to point out that the non and nee votes on the EU treaty on the constitution came about in many cases because of issues unrelated to the EU, writes Breda O'Brien.
For example, the French are fed up with high unemployment and an arrogant president; the Dutch have fears about the effects of immigration on their culture. However, the fact that some of the issues had nothing to do with the constitution itself is a perfect illustration that there is no allegiance to some supranational ideal that would enable people to transcend such concerns.
Put it this way: a warring couple may learn to agree because of their commitment to their children. They are able to put aside other issues because of their commitment to the ideal of being good parents. If the EU had captured the imagination of the 450 million people in it, national and so-called irrelevant issues would not be enough to cause a No vote, because loyalty to a greater reality would prevail. No such loyalty exists. There is more emotional allegiance to the Eurovision Song Contest than there is to the EU.
Certainly, lobby groups learned very quickly to master the intricacies of Brussels. They learned it was possible to advance issues there that could stagnate at home. However, the astute manipulation of bureaucracy is not the same as love or loyalty. It is quite impossible to imagine bumper stickers that proclaim "E-unionist and proud."
Many of those advancing the European project in its current form are deeply suspicious of nationalism, believing it to be the route only to rivalry and even war.
However, a love of one's nation is not manufactured or forced.
It has positive aspects that contribute to a sense of identity.
There is no equivalent allegiance to the EU. Even after decades, the EU remains strangely foreign and faceless, even to those nations such as France and the Netherlands which were two of the original six signatories of the Treaty of Rome.
Do emotional allegiance and loyalty to the EU matter? Well, if you want something to be sustainable, you had better hope people feel some sense of attachment to it, other than the attachment one feels to a ready source of grant aid.
Anthony Giddens once said that if the EU applied for membership to itself, it would not get in, as it would fail the democracy criteria. It is a very real question as to whether there can be any meaningful form of representative democracy where there are 450 million people, a veritable Tower of Babel of languages, and incredible diversity of culture.
The admission of Turkey is not the problem, but establishing what exactly a Dane has in common with a Sicilian.
The reasons for voting No may have been incoherent and mutually contradictory but, sadly, that is also a description of the treaty itself. It is quite possible to oppose the treaty on grounds that it is too right-wing and that it is too left-wing, because there is no clear ideological line running through it.
Whatever about an EU president and an EU diplomatic service, I propose that the choice of an EU symbol is clear. Fudge should be our supranational symbol, because the treaty is full of it. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise, because there are so many competing national interests that are protected ferociously.
You cannot wish European unity into existence. There has to be a genuine democratic movement that demands greater unity. At the moment such calls only come from elite groups, who display little short of contempt for the great unwashed who fail to get with the programme.
In these egalitarian times, one sure way to ensure mutiny and rebellion it is to tell people that they have no choice.
Recently I reread one of the first articles I ever wrote about the EU. I stated that attempting to sell far-reaching changes usually went something like this: "Oh, it's just a tiny little change, of no particular consequence. No need to worry about it."
This then changes to: "Only troglodyte Luddites could possibly oppose this little change." The final stage is: "What do you mean you don't like this, or you have no idea where it came from? You voted for it with full knowledge three years ago."
The only thing I would alter, some eight years later, is that a new stage has been added: "It doesn't matter if you vote No or not. Either we will get you to vote again until you come up with the right answer, or we will sail ahead regardless."
In the run-up to the enlargement of the EU, several politicians were embarrassed by being asked to name the 10 candidate countries. It would be an even more useful exercise to conduct polls that asked people to name three significant changes heralded by the new constitution. The vast majority of people, including many politicians, would not be able to answer that question. Yet people were required to vote Yes regardless.
That is an unsustainable situation. Those who truly want the EU to advance would be better off trying to work out how you can develop some kind of supranational equivalent of national feeling. Not easily, is the answer, but it must be done. The reality is that the EU is currently only being sustained by its own momentum.
The elites that support it are uneasily aware that, if it stops moving, the wheels might come off the wagon, and the axles might split beyond repair. However, it will be even more catastrophic if it falls apart while still lumbering forward.
There is no more point in being anti-EU than there is being anti-weather. Both are realities and they are not going to go away. However, there is a point in opposing factors that cause erratic weather due to global warming, and taking sensible precautions to try and prevent the situation getting worse.
The EU can stop at a certain point and accept that there is currently no democratic mandate for more. If it does not, it will meet the fate of other ill-judged attempts to impose social systems on reluctant participants.
bobrien@irish-times.ie
WeekendReview: page 3