ANALYSIS:Brian Cowen meets Nicolas Sarkozy today: the two men will swap notes on how to deal with Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, writes Lara Marlowe
WHEN HE wants something, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is as stubborn as a pit-bull with his jaw clamped on your leg. He doesn't give up. He doesn't let go. With its gilded salons, thick carpets and brocade curtains, the Élysée Palace seems designed to intimidate.
Brian Cowen knows what to expect when he joins Sarkozy for lunch there today. But he can rest easy. The French president is not going to try to badger him into holding a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. At least not yet.
Sarkozy still threatens to return to Dublin in early December if Ireland isn't progressing down the road to Lisbon, but he may have no choice other than to let the Taoiseach off with a vague promise to hold a referendum at some later date, after negotiating assurances on neutrality, fiscal policy, abortion and a permanent commissioner with Ireland's EU partners.
In the aftermath of the Irish No vote, Sarkozy was determined to resolve the "Irish problem" during France's six-month EU presidency. In the meantime, the French president found bigger fish to fry.
This summer's war between Russia and Georgia and the global financial crisis have given him a role on the world stage.
"Compared to this reality, the Irish getting the unfortunate Treaty of Lisbon bogged down, and the new obstacles it puts on the path of Europe . . . appear derisory," says Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, a lawyer and essayist who is close to the Sarkozy administration.
At the October 15th European summit in Brussels under the French presidency, Lisbon will be superseded by Sarkozy's initiative to "moralise capitalism".
The package is likely to call for preventing banks from speculating on financial markets; regulating the pay of business executives and traders, in particular golden handshakes; banning bonus shares for executives, and stipulating that where bosses enjoy a portion of profits, so too must employees.
Sarkozy also demands that irresponsible financial leaders be punished.
But if the Lisbon Treaty has moved to the back burner, it is not forgotten. Sarkozy never tires of pointing out that the enhanced decision-making capabilities and long-term president and foreign minister provided by Lisbon would better equip Europe to deal with such crises.
The idea that it is absurd to hold referendums on complex treaties has taken root in the French establishment. The French parliament amended the French constitution to ratify Lisbon, a government adviser noted. So why can't Ireland do the same? he asked.
Though they recognise the dangers of a second referendum, French officials nonetheless want to instil a sense of urgency in the Irish. "We tell them: 'It's risky for you. You will live with this problem for months and months, and your economic situation is getting worse'," says a French source in the European parliament. "Contrary to what the Irish Government thinks, it's going to get harder, not easier, with time."
There is little enthusiasm here for the Oireachtas to ratify parts of the treaty while reserving the rest for an eventual referendum. "Legally possible, perhaps; but politically suicidal," summarised a French academic.
In the pro-European camp, there is admiration for Sarkozy's handling of France's rejection of the constitutional treaty in 2005. During his presidential election campaign, Sarkozy announced that he would ask parliament to ratify the treaty rather than hold a second referendum.
When France voted No, the EU commission called for a period of reflection, although several other member states went ahead and ratified. When Ireland voted No, the French presidency urged the other 26 to hurry, to avoid other member states using the Irish No to delay their own ratifications. The difference is due to France (and the Netherlands') prestige as founding members of the EU. But it also reflects weariness with the process, 15 years after the Copenhagen summit called for institutional reform to facilitate enlargement.
A comparison of the arguments of the No camps in France and Ireland is a lesson in the ambiguity of the text, and the different characters of European societies. In France, the charter of fundamental rights was interpreted to open the way towards outlawing abortion; in Ireland, a third of voters thought the charter could legalise abortion. In France, opponents of the treaty deplored the absence of tax harmonisation; in Ireland, they claimed it would impose a common fiscal policy.
In both France and Ireland, affluent, well-educated people were most likely to vote Yes. But the reasons given by No voters were totally different: 42 per cent of Irish No voters said they didn't understand the treaty, while 66 per cent of the French said they had sufficient information. Unemployment was the main reason cited by 46 per cent of French No voters. Left-wing opponents were more vocal in France, where the EU was decried as the Trojan horse of globalisation and a club of free-marketeers intent on dismantling France's "social model".
In Ireland, some of the strongest opposition came from the right-wing free marketeer Declan Ganley. In an odd twist, Ganley has teamed up with the French "sovereignist" leader Viscount Philippe de Villiers, with whom Ganley shared a summer holiday in the Vendée region of France. The two men will hold a press conference in Brussels on October 16th to announce that candidates from Villiers's MPF will stand on a Libertas ticket in next June's European elections.
Fear of domination by big powers was the second reason cited for voting No in Ireland. For their part, the French long for a powerful Europe. Forty per cent of French No voters said feeling "fed up" was the reason.
The unpopularity of the Chirac-Raffarin executive doomed the treaty in France, while in Ireland only 6 per cent cited a lack of confidence in the Government.
Sarkozy has effectively consigned France's referendum misadventure to history, while Cowen is still in full crisis. If the French leader is over-insistent, the Taoiseach could argue that the Irish are more committed Europeans.
Seventy per cent of the Irish questioned by Millward Brown IMS said the EU was a good thing and 60 per cent said they wanted Ireland to remain fully involved .
In a TNS-Sofres poll published last month, 62 per cent of the French said they do not feel they are "citizens of Europe".
• Lara Marlowe is Paris Correspondent of The Irish Times