Looking for the right name. The name for the first EU legal treaty to be signed not using the official EU procedures is still in flux. It was initially called an Intergovernmental Treaty to distinguish it from a full EU treaty, being instead a deal among member states that want to sign up. The adjective intergovernmental was then dropped so as not to give the impression that it was simply a deal among member states that had nothing to do with the EU as such, because the Commission and EP are involved in the preparatory talks and will be directly and indirectly involved in its approval as well. The new deal will give them special powers in its management. The word “treaty” is also under discussion, even though it is only at the draft stage for the moment. Last Thursday, the president of the Commission, Barroso, made use of an official meeting with the heads of the EP political parties to use the term that he prefers, namely: International Agreement. Not necessarily a Treaty as such, more an arrangement among governments.
Basic principes. The best name is obviously not the most important issue in the world and on Thursday, Barroso repeated his doctrine for the new treaty, setting up outs European character and the necessary criteria. Over and above general characteristics (integrity of the EU, respect of the EU treaties and the community method, solidarity), he stressed the behaviour expected of participants in the deal, be it known as a treaty, a pact or an agreement:
Full participation of all the member states that sign up to it, along with the European Parliament;
Inclusion of a suitable clause stating the primacy of EU law and its application;
Commitment by the countries party to the deal that they will support the European Commission's future proposals to strengthen the Six Pack of rules already in force.
Barroso also raised the tricky issue of relations between the EP and national parliaments. Cooperation is indispensable because the financial commitments connected with the euro will actually be paid for from EU member states' budgets, which get approved by the parliaments of those countries. Research and contact are already under way. Barroso has simply said that cooperation between national parliaments and the EP must be clearly included in EU treaties.
Two-speed Europe and shared responsibilities. The concerns of the Commission president are clear - he rejects and wants to avoid any two-speed Europe, a matter I have discussed on several occasions, pointing out that it already exists. Barroso's efforts are understandable and praiseworthy, but his chances of success would be hugely increased if the slower speed countries formed a united whole in their rejection of the split. In reality, several governments are happy to state that the thing of greatest interest to them is national, rather than European, interests and the pursuit of their national interests decides how they act in Europe.
This is not just a question of attitude, of principles that may well change when new governments come into power in the member states, because there is also the hot potato of future financing of Europe, which seems to be governments' main concern today. The debate about the cohesion policy between the Council presidency and the EP Regional Development Committee (see the report in issue 10539) is highly revealing in this connection. It would be difficult for member states (or candidate countries), whose main aim is to have financial support or for whom European integration is more of an annoyance than anything else, to contribute to Barroso's wishes. But these coutnries also have their reasons and these must be taken into account.
Urgent issues. The subjects I've brought up here will not be openly raised at the summit on Monday, but will nevertheless be very present as the silent substrata. The aspects of the new treaty that are formally under discussion are the number of countries that have to ratify before the treaty is deemed to have come into force; whether non-euro countries due to join the euro in future can attend eurozone summits; and Sweden's domestic problems with signing up to the new deal. In reality, the problems run much deeper with, for example, categorical disagreement about the financial transactions tax idea between Nicholas Sarkozy (who is determined to introduce it) and David Cameron (who says it is idealistic nonsense). (FR/transl.fl)