It became a habit for the governments whose commitments are cancelled by European referendums to expect that people would be pro-European and that the refusal regarded only the texts submitted for ratification.

It became a habit for the governments whose commitments are cancelled by European referendums to expect that people would be pro-European and that the refusal regarded only the texts submitted for ratification. This is also how the unconvincing explanation of the Prime Minister of Ireland on the rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon sounded like. The first part of this claim is just a rhetoric formula, without content and legitimacy. The second part is absurd, as long as the authors of the rejection have not read the document – they couldn’t, taking into account the size and its technical character - and they presented their position based on arguments unrelated to it or made confusions between the EU institutional construction and the European policies which are the result of popular votes in elections in which the displeased persons have not taken part.

If we cannot see the euro-support in the Irish "No" we can accept that it doesn’t express Euro-skepticism but Euro-confusion. Removing it makes it necessary to identify both the Euro-hostile people and fight against them, as well as the clarification and the legitimization of the European message.

Who are those who oppose to the political Europe? Firstly, there are the nationalists. For them, security is achieved only behind political barricades and cultural foundations based on ethno-centrism, cultural segregation and exclusion. Since the cultures gather us inside, but divide us on the outside, it would be required for the laws to ensure the neutralization of lower cultures with the superior ones. We find here again the classic speech of the extreme right, sometimes dissim