Europe's leaders must learn a new language: clarity

Internal links

Bush: I won't give in over climate deal

Bush feels heat from protesters at summit

French cowboys in need ask a Texan

A miasma hangs over the Swedish city of Gothenburg, where the American President met the assembled leaders of the European Union yesterday. It does not consist of the greenhouse gases, which seem to cause Mr Bush so little concern, nor of the tear gas that police had ready in extremis to dispel protesters against him. It is a noxious cloud of the EU's own making, created by the rejection by Irish voters of the Treaty of Nice, which is to pave the way for the enlargement of the union.

What was to have been a celebration of the EU's success in readying itself for the arrival of new members has been turned into an exercise in damage limitation. The shock and bitterness of the candidate countries is understandable: the treaty suddenly has been put in peril not by some predictable curmudgeon as Britain or Denmark ­ but by a country they have looked on as a model of how EU membership can unlock unimagined growth and prosperity.

Doubtless a formula will be found to resolve the problem. If what happened with Denmark after its initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty is anything to go by, a cosmetic but soothing paragraph or two will be tacked onto the treaty, and the Dublin government will indulge in some judicious scaremongering over the consequences of a second "no". A new referendum will be held, and this time all will be well.

It is reasonable to ask whether such complicated and nuanced issues as the Nice Treaty ­ covering no fewer than 80 pages of the EU's official journal and which 15 heads of government spent four ill-tempered days and nights finalising last December ­ are suitable subjects for referendums in the first place. If Nice confused the leaders, imagine its effect on ordinary citizens. Unsurprisingly, it is still unclear exactly why the one-third of Irish voters who went to the polls voted the way they did.

But the underlying lessons of the Irish rejection are twofold and familiar. Yet again, Europe has failed to connect with its peoples. Second, the contrast between Europe's aspirations to be a surefooted and decisive player in the world and the shambolic manner in which it conducts its most important business is as glaring as ever.

This weekend in Gothenburg, the European Union must issue a ringing assurance that whatever the events in Ireland, enlargement will go ahead ­ and preferably in language the people can understand.