In a few hours' time, the names of the two figures are expected to be made known, who will allow Henry Kissinger's famous question to be answered: what's the telephone number for the European Union? In reality, this definition is excessive. The permanent president of the European Council will not be the president of Europe, as is too often written, and the high representative will not be the European minister for foreign affairs: this title was lost on the wayside, between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. These decisions, however, will have huge echoes in the media, and therefore among the public at large. European unity and its significance will be talked about everywhere, which is positive because the main enemy of European construction is ignorance about its meaning, objectives and what the situation really is.
Truth and appearances. It is certain that if the decisions are made this evening, criticism and discontent will by far outweigh satisfaction and praise, because the number of people disappointed and frustrated will obviously be greater than the number of those satisfied: the two selected figures will have to face down a lot of disappointed people; this is simply mathematics. The Federalists will protest if the two people nominated do not share their points of view, supporters of highly committed contenders will criticise the choice of men of compromise, feminist organisations will complain if one of the two figures appointed is not a woman. People will, nevertheless, know that Europe exists and that all opinions can be expressed, which is not the case everywhere in the world.
This column is not in the game of crystal ball gazing. Our publication regularly reports in a balanced way on developments and important decisions taken, and this very evening there will be a special edition to report on the results of the summit. Currently, every public declaration includes a tactical element, and all politicians know how to hide their intentions if they deem it opportune. To what extent is official British support for Tony Blair sincere? Is the Swedish Presidency really prepared to resort to majority voting, if necessary, or is this a form of pressure on those prevaricating? There are numerous other examples. Moreover, any sentence uttered by the candidates is over-exploited and used as a polemical weapon. We witnessed this with the intention, attributed to Mr Van Rompuy, of imposing a European "green tax" from which revenue would partly fund Community policies. This rumour stirred up a number of reactions and sharp protests from British Conservatives. It would in fact appear, however, that the Belgian prime minister only spoke about opening a reflection on future European Union funding - and it is well known that any ideas in this connection require the unanimity of all member states. But this proved to be a dream occasion for re-opening the row about the kind of permanent president of the European Council: a leader prepared to launch initiatives and provide impetus to new orientations, or simply the organiser of the work of heads of state and government? The supporters of the second formula seized hold of this occasion to launch a warning.
Procedures contested, balances to be respected. Current procedures have been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism: lack of transparency, democratic deficits in modalities, secret negotiations and informal telephone conversations. This criticism is partly justified, and formulas have been proposed and envisaged to rectify the problems, such as organising the hearings of candidates and an open debate between decision-makers.
Respect, however, of certain demands for balance, is crucial. The Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt (who has the responsibility for preparing decisions as the president of the European Council), therefore pointed out that it is essential to respect in particular: a) the balance between political tendencies, by taking into account the nominations already made (Commission president, European Parliament president); b) geographical balance, with the same consideration; c) gender balance.
And I've left things out. Appeals were launched to take into account other fundamental demands too such as: respect for the "Community method" with balance between the three big political institutions and the engine role of the European Commission; European good faith in those chosen (the permanent president of the European Council must be "dedicated to the European cause and from a country which supports all European policies"); the determination to achieve the objectives of integration clearly indicated in the Lisbon Treaty itself. I have therefore referred to the appeal published in all member states and signed by all those who "made Europe" on the ground, such as Jacques Delors, Etienne Davignon and Romano Prodi etc and figures carrying out senior responsibility in the EU and elsewhere, such as Pascal Lamy and Jerzy Buzek etc. We should know tonight to what extent it will have been possible to reconcile the different demands.
(F.R./transl.rh)