BRUSSELS: Here we go again. Having worked hard to salvage the ill-fated European Union “constitution” after it was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005, the bloc’s 27 leaders now face the difficult some would say, impossible task of preventing another Europe-wide crisis.

Ireland’s massive “no” vote against the EU “reform treaty”, a revised and slimmed-down version of the original three-year old blueprint, means that key reforms designed to streamline the bloc’s institutions and decision-making machinery cannot enter into force as planned on Jan 1, 2009.

Decisions on what to do next will be taken when EU leaders meet for crisis talks in Brussels on June 19-20. Under EU rules, all 27 states have to give the blueprint their assent through either parliamentary endorsement or voter consultation. Ireland had a constitutional obligation to hold a referendum, but other states are relying on approval by pliant legislatures, 18 of which have already given their go-ahead to the new text.

For the moment, as they digest the massive implication of the Ireland’s treaty rejection, it’s hand-wringing and recrimination time. A few courageous souls are also searching for explanations: namely just why so many Europeans continue to see the EU as a remote and elitist organisation.

While accusations come easy, understanding the reasons for Ireland’s embarrassing EU snub is going to be a complex and difficult task. For policymakers, it also means coming to terms with unpleasant truths about the EU’s continuing failure to attract and inspire ordinary Europeans.

First, the finger-pointing. The general consensus across the bloc is that Irish voters are an ungrateful lot who, having received billions of euros in EU aid over the last two decades, have now turned their back on their benefactors.

The charge was made only days ahead of the referendum by none other than French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner who insisted that an Irish “no” would demonstrate that Ireland, which had relied on EU money for its turbo-charged economic take-off, was a country that could not be counted on to support further European integration. Not surprisingly, the comment was described as “imperious” by many in Ireland.

There are accusations that the new Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen did not work hard enough to campaign for a “yes” vote, expecting voters to trust his judgment, but not going to the trouble of explaining the benefits of the treaty. Making matters worse, Cowen and other Irish politicians admitted they had not read the complicated and complex blueprint. As Irish commentators underlined after the vote, most of the arguments in favour of the EU treaty were either historical – “look what Europe has done for us” or had a bullying tone which caused resentment among the electorate.

It was hardly surprising therefore that critics of the treaty an unlikely assortment of campaigners including Libertas, a slick lobby group run by businessman Declan Ganley were able to spread unfounded rumours that it would lead to an increase in Ireland’s low 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate, that the country would have to abandon its neutrality in world affairs and annul its anti-abortion legislation. Many also feared that Ireland, which has taken in thousands of east European workers, would face a further increase in immigration at a time when jobs are harder to come by because of a slowing national economy.

Ireland’s rejection of the treaty is a blow to EU plans to streamline internal decision-making while also increasing its global clout and standing. New formulae for allowing more decisions by majority vote rather than through unanimity will remain on ice. In addition, the new positions of a permanent president of the European Council of EU leaders and a stronger foreign policy chief with a real diplomatic service will be delayed.

There are concerns that the EU will be weakened internationally, notably in dealings with difficult powers such as Russia, China and Iran. Also, a new US president will not be able to engage immediately with the 27-nation bloc, endangering planned transatlantic initiatives to end fighting in the Middle East and stop wars in Africa. Plans for EU membership for Turkey could be jeopardised.

Many fear that the EU may once again enter an era of inward-looking introspection at a time when many want the bloc to tackle global security challenges, including efforts to fight climate change, promote energy security and efficiency and find solutions to ease the current food crisis.

Certainly, some soul-searching is necessary. While the EU cannot give up its hopes of taking vital global initiatives, EU leaders must give urgent thought to devising new strategies to restore the bloc’s public legitimacy. The EU Commission has in recent years focused on a few key deliverables, including legislation to ensure cheaper telephone costs, more energy competition and introducing stronger environmental protection standards.

More people-friendly and consumer-friendly policies are clearly needed. But it’s also going to be about changing mind-sets a frighteningly difficult task. National leaders in Europe including the likes of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown have much too often blamed the EU for their own errors and mistakes, thereby fanning anti-EU sentiment in their countries.

EU leaders, in Brussels and elsewhere, have also failed to make their citizens proud of Europe. References to “no more wars” and the benefits of European integration to ensure decades of peace may have mobilised earlier generations but have little relevance for young Europeans who know little of earlier inter-European conflicts.

Instead, across Europe, politicians have repeatedly stoked public concern about issues like globalisation, trade liberalisation and increased competition from India and China, giving Europeans the impression that they cannot cope with a rapidly changing world.

As they ponder the way ahead, EU leaders face tough decisions. Many talk openly of a split in the EU, the creation of a “two-speed” Europe where some countries will press ahead with further integration while others watch from the sidelines.

The general consensus is that ratification of the treaty by other member states must go ahead. Britain, which stopped its ratification process after the French and Dutch votes in 2005, has said it will complete parliamentary ratification this time as planned, despite opposition demands for a referendum.

Sweden has also vowed to go ahead and the Czech Republic where Euroscepticism is also rife has indicated that it will not put treaty ratification on the backburner. Officials are hoping that if all other member states approve the text by December, there will be increased pressure on Ireland to accept an opt-out or put a revised treaty to another vote as it did in 2002 when an earlier EU treaty was rejected in 2001.

While such alternatives are pursued, EU policymakers must also acknowledge that European integration will remain a mainly top-down exercise. Ordinary Europeans will never really love the EU but with effort and skillful campaigning, they can be persuaded to recognise that it is in their interest to build a stronger and more confident Union.