To use an analogy, imagine a group of people go out for dinner, and after a long time searching, all agree on a restaurant. The menus appear and most are happy enough, some even order, but one person decides they don't like what's on offer.
What to do? One option is for everyone to leave the restaurant and start looking for a better one, but if it's already the second time that's happened, they would probably prefer not to. They would surely first explore other options.
The chef might make something special for that particular person. Or perhaps the person would be content if some ingredients were changed or left out.
Following the Irish "No" vote, the EU finds itself in a similar situation and must now find a way of moving forward rather than making everyone go hungry.
Eurosceptics will not like it but it seems inconceivable that all the other member states will simply say "too bad – one country has said 'No' to the package as it stands, so let's forget reform and stick with the current system for ever more".
As I have said, all 27 member states want reform and "No" campaigners in Ireland said themselves that they want to negotiate a better package.
So, what is to be done? Above all, what would not work would be any attempts to bully or threaten Ireland into agreeing to the treaty. Rather, Ireland must have a profound internal debate to identify precisely what it is they don't like about the Lisbon Treaty.
Presumably it is not the extra powers for parliaments, nor the clearer focus on combating climate change, but some other aspects. If they can identify what those are, then they can ask the other member states for help in addressing their concerns.
This, after all, is precisely what Denmark did after their initial rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. They said to the rest of Europe that they didn't want to blow up the whole edifice, but that they would come back with proposals to find a way out.
They identified four items in the Maastricht package that they didn't like, the other member states were able to meet their concerns (without, by the way, needing to change the treaty to do so) and Denmark then approved the treaty by a comfortable majority in a new referendum
Several concerns raised in the Irish debate can easily be met, not least because they were unjustified fears. The treaty does not affect Ireland's abortion laws, it does not change their ability to set their tax rates, it does not oblige them to send troops to a European army and it does not change the EU's negotiating stance on agriculture with the World Trade Organisation. Such fears can be assuaged without needing to change the treaty, by clarifying declarations or, if necessary, additional protocols.
Other concerns might be more difficult. The loss of an Irish Commissioner (for one turn out of three, as for every member state, beginning in 2014) was an issue, but special treatment for Ireland would be difficult. After all, they and the other small countries were victorious on that point in the negotiations on the treaty in ensuring equal rotation, irrespective of the size of countries. Note that the current treaties, if left unamended, would require a smaller Commission – but without an agreed rotation system.
Whatever the issues are, it should not be impossible to address the bulk of Irish concerns. If this can be done without having to alter the treaty – which would require a new Intergovernmental Conference and renewed ratification in all the countries (now nearly 20) that have ratified already – then so much the better.
Nor should we accept the bleating from Eurosceptics that there is somehow something undemocratic about seeking a solution. It is perfectly reasonable to address a divergence in the positions of the 27 EU countries by asking the minority of one to think again – if its concerns have been addressed. What would be undemocratic would be to allow the one to prevail over the many without exploring possible solutions.
Of course, no-one relishes the prospect of still more debate and negotiation on the minutiae of the composition and functioning of the EU institutions. Achieving a solution acceptable to all 27 countries may not be easy. But an even worse solution would be to starve the EU of all reform.
A poorly functioning EU, failing to deliver on behalf of its citizens, is in no-one's interest. Sweeping the necessary reforms under the carpet because you can't even be bothered to explore the possibility for a compromise, would do nobody
any favours.