First-hand knowledge. In a few weeks' time, the University of New York will begin a reflection process on the future of the Lisbon Treaty and how it operates. This reflection process will take place because the former Legal Counsel from the Council of the EU (until a few days ago), Claude Piris, will begin giving lectures there. Given that the task he had undertaken for several years has now come to an end, he was invited to explain the concept of Europe to American students. There are certainly already many US universities that include European construction in their programmes and given their level of education, teaching is obviously high quality. The positions, however, taken by US lecturers have often (after a number of observations that I have made) given me the impression that their courses are particularly concerned with examining US positions on controversial subjects, whether this is Turkish accession, relations with Russia or the energy dossier, rather than positions put forward by the EU. Mr Piris has first-hand knowledge of European issues at the highest level because until last month he attended European Council meetings, including meetings of the most select and confidential variety. Without, of course, breaching certain obligations of confidentiality, he talked about his projects in an informal interview with four journalists. In New York, his primary goal is to examine the aspects of the Lisbon Treaty that he considers as still being open and likely to be subject to developments to be clarified.
Clarification. For example: enhanced co-operation, namely Community accomplishments in areas in which only a certain number of member states participate. This is a very current issue because enhanced co-operation on the European patent is currently being discussed and creating quite a stir. The Lisbon Treaty is quite clear: the European Commission and the European Parliament should carry out their roles with regard to these kinds of projects. Moreover, if this kind of cooperation expands and become more important, is it logical that all the commissioners and MEPs participate in these projects and their management from the outset, even those who come from member states that have chosen not to participate in them, and with the votes taking place at simple majority? If this kind of co-operation develops, would ad hoc institutions be necessary, given the importance of the areas concerned? A reflection exercise is appropriate but there is no room for over-dramatising things.
A certain flexibility is, in fact, possible. At a legal level, a European Council for the eurozone does not exist. In practice, Mr Van Rompuy organises one every time he considers it appropriate, by bringing together eurozone heads of state and government - a formula that has been calmly accepted without any problems.
One aspect that Europe still needs to examine involves the participation of national parliaments in Community affairs. Mr Piris' experience has led him to consider that the Danish system of parliamentary control on EU decisions is positive overall but is it appropriate for all member states? Co-operation between national parliaments and the European Parliament is, in any case, consistently improving.
On the other hand, he considers that the EP should not use its enhanced powers in certain areas as an instrument for intervening in other domains where its competences are more restricted. For example, in the area of trade negotiations with third countries, no national parliament has access to all the documentation. This kind of transparency would make negotiations of this kind impossible.
On certain dossiers Mr Piris is not afraid to admit that he does not have a legal opinion, on Eurobonds, for example. Nonetheless, he does consider that, ultimately, something will be accomplished in the debates currently taking place.
Defence of the European Council. At a general level, he believes that all member states' leaders at the most senior level “are more pro-European than is generally thought and more pro-European than appears in the press”. In his opinion, the European Council is a democratic body (it is, indeed, made up of delegates elected by the people at the most senior level) and within it “the political determination to push Europe forward, is enormous”. The heads of state and government are discussing or will discuss subjects that in the past they did not tackle (reference to the forthcoming energy summit?) and they are now involved in all areas of European construction (implying those areas, which in the past they neglected). Even the operational improvements are important: the frequency of meetings held, summarised and clearer conclusions, which “have at last become possible to read!” Conclusion: Mr Piris says that he is reasonably optimistic.
It is positive for Europe that this spirit will be communicated to the future American elite. (F.R./transl.fl)