Speed is of the essence. The negotiations on the intergovernmental treaty, the first EU treaty not to be signed by all 27 EU member states, kick off on Tuesday 20 December. A number of agreements have been negotiated and signed by groups of member states in the past, most of which were later added to the EU treaty, but this is the first time that a true treaty will be signed that one country refuses to join. It is also rare for talks of such import to begin the week before Christmas, but speed is of the essence because the idea is to get the new treaty signed in March next year.
I shall not be discussing the convoluted ins and outs that led up to this odd situation, or the way the talks will be run (with a European Parliament delegation), but will focus instead on a few of the anomalies:
The United Kingdom, which refuses to join the deal, will attend the talks. The UK, which stymied a full EU deal, has observer status for the treaty talks without any voting rights. This was Van Rompuy's decision. After all, he chairs the European Council, of which the UK is a member, and he is trying to prevent any widening of the divisions between the UK and the other member states. Addressing the European Parliament last week, he recommended that the new treaty be incorporated at some point into the main EU treaty, for which the UK is required. This is understandable, given Van Rompuy's job.
Basic negotiating text already on the table. The negotiating document, as one of Van Rompuy's assistants explained, is already public because “it is simply an interpretation in law of the statement” made by all the EU heads of state bar the United Kingdom (some having first to consult parliament). The statement was summarised in EUROPE 10518.
Flexible and speedy implementation. Lawyers say the new treaty can come into force as soon as nine eurozone member states ratify it. Eurozone countries ratifying it at a later date will remain in the eurozone but will not be expected to apply the treaty until they ratify it.
Confirmations. All the new treaty provisions are binding and some are almost revolutionary, arising from earlier Franco-German compromises like the 'golden rule' of balanced national budgets to be added to national constitutions (or equivalent legislation). There is full confirmation of fast and effective, automatic deficit correction proceedings and penalties.
Court of Justice - The treaty's name. The highly significant role of the EU institutions has been confirmed, although there seem to be a few legal problems with the role assigned to the European Court of Justice. Barroso's timid attempts to get the new deal called an international treaty rather than an intergovernmental treaty have not worked because the second name is already widely in use, although it is not an intergovernmental treaty in fact, because the EU institutions and EU proceedings are very visibly involved.
What about economic convergence in all this? The positive issues listed above do not mean that any of the essential aspects have been agreed upon and that the talks will simply be tying up loose ends. Several member states, along with the EU institutions, feel that budget discipline should be accompanied by clear references to economic convergence and a few areas of tax harmonisation. Other member states, however, appear reluctant to have anything explicit added to the treaty on such issues. In the absence of agreement, there is a tendency to want to make use of the enhanced cooperation process set out in the Lisbon Treaty. Not to mention the fact that the attitude of other member states remains a mystery for the moment, as does their degree of enthusiasm. Strong negotiating and diplomatic skills will clearly be required at the talks. (FR/transl.fl)