We've been waiting so much for this day that it would be in bad taste to start talking now about the problems and shortcomings that exist, and the traps that the EU should be looking out for. The relief felt at overcoming the final obstacles to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the positive tone of the reactions are fully justified. Europe needs this treaty, which will allow it to strengthen Community integration, make it more democratic and extend it into new areas. A common energy policy is becoming possible, management of the single currency is an established fact, European external policy instruments are gradually being put into place, the way to strengthened cooperation (allowing for the launch of new initiatives, even if certain member states do not want to participate in them) is marked out, and Parliament-Council co-decision is becoming the norm. No reservations or criticism, even justified, can obscure this new stage for a united Europe.
It would, however, be naïve and quite counter-productive to ignore the remaining obstacles. Today's slogan is not “The essential part is done”, but rather, “Everything is beginning”. The most urgent task is designating the two figures that will be playing an essential role in implementing the new situation in Europe.
Reasons, good and less good, for the emergence of Mr Van Rompuy. Even though it is not yet in the bag, the name of the Belgian prime minister as stable president of the European Council emerged at the beginning of the week for several reasons. The choice of a figure from one of the Benelux countries was doing the rounds: three small or medium countries, at the centre of European construction from the beginning, taking part in all the aspects of what is currently happening in Europe (the euro, Schengen area), allowing for a certain geographical balance to be respected (the president of the Parliament is from one of the Eastern countries, the president of the Commission from the Iberian peninsula). Out of the three Benelux countries, Belgium and Luxembourg have never obstructed a deepening in European integration (whereas the Netherlands voted against the draft Constitutional Treaty). Political leaders from these two countries have always preferred to play a European rather than national role.
In this connection, two names sprang to mind: Mr Juncker and Mr Verhofstadt. Why would a third then prevail? Because the informal polls carried out at the most senior levels have indicated that neither one nor the other would have obtained unanimity. We can see why: Guy Verhofstadt is too” federalist”, too committed to a supranational direction, to please everybody; Jean-Claude Juncker openly declared his candidacy to counter that of Tony Blair and he has recently not held his punches when responding to the behaviour of certain member states. This is why a vote at unanimity in their regard has become unlikely. It is true that the Lisbon Treaty does not impose unanimity, but who would want the first stable president of the summit to be designated against the wishes of the United Kingdom or another member state?
We can see that the emergence of Mr Van Rompuy is not only underpinned by positive motives. Mr Juncker and Mr Verhofstadt's European credentials are superb and well known. Van Rompuy still has to prove himself. The balance and wisdom he has demonstrated in his current role guarantee that he will be a good mediator and able to contribute efficiently to the definition of European positions on the world stage. At the moment, it would be difficult to say any more, other than acknowledge the traditional and brilliant support Belgian figures have lent to European construction.
A European minister for foreign affairs of Socialist origin? The possible designation of a figure from the EPP tendency to the head of the European Council would pave the way for a high representative for foreign policy of Socialist origin. This would also be positive for balance at the European Commission. The president of the latter is from the EPP and it would be appropriate that the high representative (and obviously the most influential of the vice presidents, given the significance of his different duties, such as stable president of the “External Relations Council”) belong to the Socialist family. The names circulating are first class and it appears likely that this essential role for the EU of tomorrow will be in good hands. Geographical balance would suggest a Northerly direction (including the United Kingdom) or a Mediterranean one. But there's not just one place…
Wild imaginings are pointless because in a week's time, thanks to the efficiency of the Swedish Presidency, we'll have the answers and thus the new history of Europe will commence.
F.R./transl.rh)