A complicated project. Some light was shed during the European Parliament plenary session regarding the arduous road down which we must travel if the political decision to create a new treaty without British participation is to be implemented - but we are still far from having answered all the questions raised. As one is well aware, the sittings of the EP do not receive much of an echo in the media. I therefore call on readers, as a first step, to return to the report on Tuesday's session amply covered in our bulletin of Wednesday 14 December, in which special attention is given to the speeches by the presidents of the European Council and Commission. Let me remind you of the political, institutional and legal aspects of the debate, as well as of the scale of the difficulties that lie before us.
An optimistic president. Let us take a quick look at the opening remark by Herman Van Rompuy, who said that this year, 2011, seen as an annus horribilis for Europe, could become an annus mirabilis. A similar concept had already been expressed in this column, albeit with a little less class. What is important is why the president delivers such an optimistic message from the summit. His reasons could be summarised as: (a) the 27 EU member states may one day all agree to include the acquis of the new treaty into the existing treaty; (b) at any rate the new treaty will respect what already exists, and in particular the single market acquis; and (c) the EP will be involved in defining the new treaty. Van Rompuy nonetheless calls for patience, as lost confidence cannot be restored overnight, given the severity of the crisis. The United Kingdom can still be recovered, although he did not say so in so many words. He did speak of the responsibilities to be shouldered by the eurozone countries for their part in the crisis, his way of saying that it is too easy to place the whole burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the world of finance. He rejected the accusation that solidarity was lacking between member states, and called for a calculation to be made of the hundreds of billion euro that have been committed for bail outs.
Three points set out by Barroso. The president of the Commission: (1) openly supported eurobonds (taking up the definition of “stability bonds” used in his paper); 2) recapped on the Commission's initiatives in favour of growth and employment, as austerity cannot be the only answer to the crisis; and (3) used the adjective “international” for defining the new agreement envisaged, in the place of “intergovernmental” which gives too much of an impression that there is an arrangement between governments, when the European nature and participation by the Community institutions should be obvious, even in the name. Barroso was, moreover, firm and explicit, saying that the Commission will not accept an intergovernmental agreement that is in conflict with EU law, given that it must fully play its role as Guardian of the Treaties.
British MEPs: a forgotten aspect? The debate focused on financial and monetary aspects (with Mr Daul's statement that 26 out of 27 states have acknowledged that shared sovereignty is preferable to sovereignty taken hostage by the markets). However, the International Agreement was also mentioned. As is logical, emphasis was placed on the participation and role of the Parliament in future negotiations. This is an aspect that is already acquired but which encounters a number of difficulties, not of principle but as regards implementation. For example, will British MEPs be allowed to discuss a treaty in which their country of origin does not participate? For Nigel Farage, who is pressing for Britain to pull out of the EU, the answer is simple - during Tuesday's debate in Strasbourg, he left the House, after having announced a national referendum by which, he said, his country would regain its freedom. But do his colleagues of the same nationality agree with him?
Essential aspects under discussion. According to Nicolas Sarkozy, the heads of state and/or government will officially become the true European government, which in his opinion represents democratic progress. This was not the opinion held by all, as others place emphasis on the new powers of the European Commission and on the majority nature of the euro's future management.
One could go on giving examples of the questions that are still unanswered on the international treaty to be established. One can even detect a tendency to ask whether this treaty is truly necessary or whether it would be incompatible with the one already there. According to the latter hypothesis, it would be preferable to strengthen the disciplines that already exist. What is certain is that it is not only the form but also the substance of the treaty that seem to still be open, beginning with the definition of the role and powers of the European Commission and of the Court of Justice, two institutions whose British members continue, of course, to be a part. Such problems appear to be of a legal nature - but the substance is of a political kind.
(FR/transl.jl)