Prepared in advance… The conclusions from last Sunday's European Council are full of interesting positions and wise considerations about the current state of the EU and its future. Nonetheless, there is something missing: they were drafted almost entirely before the double European Council-Eurozone Summit and they should have given an account of this! Apart from a few last-minute updates, which are sometimes important, it is true - everything had already been written out beforehand. If, on the eve of this Wednesday's decisive summit, we wish to know how the negotiations went last Sunday on the euro crisis and what was achieved, it is not these conclusions that one should read but rather the report published in our bulletin on Monday (EUROPE 10480). The conclusions indicate that the president “informed the European Council of the level of preparations for the eurozone summit on 23 and 26 October”, although Sunday's eurozone meeting, at the moment the conclusions were distributed, was still taking place.
… important nonetheless. This text should nonetheless be read attentively and should definitely be kept for reference because it includes a number of indications on the line and intentions of the EU in areas such as: (a) the development and functioning of the single market (with a reduction in administrative costs of 25%); (b) the meetings this December and in March 2012 on energy efficiency, research and innovation; (c) the strengthening of common economic governance, the viability of public finances and tax co-ordination. The text also mentions, without providing any definitive commitments, the common corporate tax band (legislative works to follow) and the financial transactions tax (taking note of the Commission proposal). One chapter focuses on financial market rules and the progress accomplished in this area by the Parliament/Council duo, as well as more recent Commission proposals for tackling market irregularities and the proposals announced on the “ratings agencies”.
We can see that this is, above all, support provided at the most senior level for current projects.
Unconvincing assurances? Some of the conclusions from Sunday's debates are rather meagre and are aimed at reassuring non-eurozone member states with regard to “respect for the integrity of the EU as a whole and its functioning with 27 member states”. Our special edition on Monday provided a very comprehensive report on this problem, the guarantees that the non-eurozone countries obtained and the affirmation made by Mr Barroso in which he ruled out any kind of separation between the eurozone and the rest of the EU. The conclusions clearly indicate that the Commission will ensure the respect of “fair conditions” for all member states, “including those that are not part of the euro”, in the functioning of the single market and elsewhere. They also point out that any possible amendments to the treaty will be made with the EU as a whole. As we know, the first result was the fact that the eurozone summit this Wednesday will be preceded by a European Council, which was not previously planned.
Yet I doubt that this aspect of the conclusions will really have an impact on eurozone countries. It is these countries that manage the currency and fund action instruments, and they will make the decisions they consider appropriate. The fact that Mr Van Rompuy will ensure that the other countries are notified will not change a great deal.
Trade and neighbourhood policy. These conclusions are never-ending. They also cover external relations from two angles: (a) trade policy. The paragraphs focusing on this subject are very far removed from what the summit effectively discussed but they indicate important and at times surprising orientations. I see in them accentuated scepticism about the Doha Round and a great deal of trust in regional and bilateral agreements. This column will be returning to the subject in more detail; (b) neighbourhood policy with regard to the vast region encompassing Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Iran (without forgetting, for an affirmation of principle, the Eastern Partnership). There are no surprises on this subject but it is significant that it is the heads of state or government, and not the foreign affairs ministers, who have their say.
Confidence in the fate of the euro. We can see that it is not in this Sunday's conclusions that we will find new elements regarding this Wednesday's debates on the euro. Nonetheless, there are links even when they are not explicit. The essential element now regards Italy's position and commitments (see the following pages). The protagonists involved in this question can now have their say. I will just reaffirm but I do not believe the disastrous forecasts regarding the fate of the euro; on the contrary, we may even be seeing its consolidation. (FR/transl.fl)