Van Rompuy's appropriate reflex. Once again, the permanent president of the European Council has displayed a good reflex at the right time. A few months ago he announced that he wanted to organise the first European summit on energy on 4 February. This announcement provoked considerable resonance and many expectations - from this column too. A few days before the meeting, there was a change of programme. On the day, the European Council would discuss all current affairs and especially economic and monetary affairs, which it effectively proceeded to do (with some important results which, in my opinion, could be very promising, even if they have not yet been definitively agreed).
I am certain that this change of programme did not just correspond to concerns about sticking to current affairs. I think that in the meantime, the president of the European Council also developed the conviction during the preparatory work that no important result could be achieved at the present time in the energy domain. This is plain to see for everybody: a lengthy text, which says practically nothing about operational aspects.
Energy and Innovation, lack of concrete elements. The summit Conclusions are a long list of general principles and good intentions which are almost the spitting image of the Conclusions of the past, which Mr Van Rompuy had fortunately replaced with briefer, and especially more practical, texts. I suspect but am not certain that the majority of heads of state and government have not even read the Conclusions document and have left the responsibility of reading it up to their colleagues, so that they can check that it does not contain any affirmations that do not comply with the positions of their respective countries. The first sentence is already indicative: “A safe, sustainable and financially affordable energy, supply of which is guaranteed and which contributes to European competitiveness, remains a priority for Europe”. How could anyone have any doubts about it? The following is just as vague: “The EU needs an integrated, interconnected and fully operational internal energy market”. It is unfortunate that an element of doubt is used to describe the objectives: “The internal market should be completed by 2014”. It is especially unfortunate that the part which could be described as operational only contains invitations to the European Commission and other bodies to examine this or “speed up the work” on that. The most audacious thing about it consists of the announcement that “the European Council is eagerly awaiting the proposal the Commission is due to present soon” on such and such a subject. When an objective is indicated, it is an objective of long date and is only highlighted to illustrate that the objective has not yet been attained: “It is necessary to attain the 20% increase in energy efficiency objective by 2010, which it is not yet on track to achieving” (paragraph 8) and in paragraph 15, “the European Council is eagerly awaiting the development of a strategy to reduce CO2 emissions by 2050”. When a sensitive and important point is finally illustrated, it is introduced as a wish: “It would be necessary to help push forward the work for setting up a partnership with Russia” (paragraph 13).
The Innovation chapter offers nothing more concrete either: “The European Council has noted the trends and developments” (paragraph 17); Europe needs… no effort should be spared…”, or at most (paragraph 25), “it is more important than ever to improve public spending efficiency at national and EU levels”. Should an ad hoc summit be arranged to string out a wish list and other banalities without even mentioning the real problems? Mr Van Rompuy understood in time that it was necessary to change the way in which the announced summit was organised and the press reports only included the other subjects on the agenda.
Concerns or negative reactions. EUROPE 10310 summarised the reactions from the European Parliament. The president of the EPP Group said that the Council text “goes in the right direction”. The other groups were very critical and all of them complained about one or other of the shortcomings involving energy savings, energy efficiency or the race to production. Mr Cohn-Bendit said that “the summit conclusions do not bring any added value. EU energy policy remains a dead letter”.
The real problems. What are the real problems the EU should be providing answers to and upon which the European Council has so far been unable to express itself? Tomorrow, this column will seek to indicate these problems and clarify them. I am, however, afraid that Mr Van Rompuy will still have some time to wait before being able to organise a genuine and far reaching debate on these questions … (F.R./transl.fl)