Priority on efficiency, but… After explaining how he interpreted his role and how he intended to exercise his duties as permanent president of the European Council (see this column yesterday), Herman Van Rompuy informed the press in no uncertain terms: “My opinions carry no weight, my role is to seek consensus. My positions will be those approved by the European Council”. This affirmation is undoubtedly an understatement because his role as president will in fact be essential and common positions will often be the result of conciliatory action and compromise. He was seeking, however, to indicate that there is very little similarity between a president of the EU and a president of the United States, and that he would be chairman of one of the Community institutions and would work in liaison with the president of the Commission and the European Parliament. This clarification will strengthen the Community method and the EU project that seeks to be a more compact entity, while at the same time respecting the opinions of all: “Without respect for our diversity, we will never build our unity”.
But in what direction will the orientations to define go and what objectives will be pursued: a shift towards greater and closer integration or a move towards simple cooperation between states? Will we go in the direction of a genuine Union or will we move towards a copy of the Council of Europe and the OECD? We are aware that national positions are not all alike. I am not referring to specific or technical dossiers on which orientations do not coincide, but rather the different interests; the permanent quest of operational compromises is inevitable and the results on which the EU achieves these compromises are often successful. What is lacking, however, is the consensus on which the very conception of the future EU and its vision of the future is based.
A warning. The debate on doctrine and the main principles will not be taken up by Mr Van Rompuy, whose goal is to make the EU function effectively. Nonetheless, this debate has just been revived by the president of the Liberal Group at the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, who seized the moment and observation made, which in his opinion sounded the alarm: at the time of the final compromise at the Copenhagen summit on climate change, Europe was absent! Sitting around the table were Barack Obama for the US, Wen Jibao for China, Singh for India, Lula for Brazil and Zuma for South Africa; no European was present. Mr Verhofstadt was not talking about the overall result of Copenhagen (to which this column will return tomorrow). His aim was to point out the fact that “Europe had not been invited” to this decisive meeting and had not been represented by any of the member states or the EU itself. According to Mr Verhofstadt, “this is a very hard wake-up call”.
His conclusion is simple, either the EU becomes a political union or it will not have a place at the most important international negotiating tables: “The member states don't have the choice, either they get their voice heard through Europe or they will not be heard”. We are not there yet, but Copenhagen represented, in his opinion, “a serious warning”. The Lisbon Treaty has given Europe the instruments for taking action: European diplomacy and a common economic strategy. If the EU does not use them swiftly and efficiently, Europe will no longer be given a hearing on anything because “new empires will not be satisfied with economic power alone (…) but will get on with regard to conflicts” and international alliances. This actually means that “we leave other countries to decide without us”.
Are we exaggerating? We may certainly find Mr Verhofstadt excessive and point out that the EU played an essential role at Copenhagen, and that throughout the climate issue it has adopted a leading role without which negotiations would not even have begun. It is not the EU's absence from a meeting that changes the situation but Mr Verhofstadt seeks to clarify things: states must consolidate their unity or their power will decline.
The question regarding the nature and development of the EU is, nevertheless, posed when the new financial perspectives are defined, as well definitions regarding cohesion policy and Turkish accession. We know Guy Verhofstadt's position: he believes that the EU cannot avoid a serious re-think regarding “differentiation” between member states either by resorting to “strengthened cooperation” or, if necessary, more radical solutions because the Lisbon Treaty has introduced the option of leaving the Union. At some point in time this debate will be unavoidable.
(F.R./transl.fl)