Beyond disappointment. Those who were hoping that the last European Council for 2012 would have sketched the political bases for the future Europe are disappointed. The heads of government adopted significant, but essentially technical, measures and they postponed the political, institutional and economic aspects until the new year (see this column in yesterday's edition of EUROPE). The disappointment and impatience of a few political forces is understandable but the files that are on hold are not struck from the European debate - all the key players have the opportunity and the right to express their opinion on this.
What is more, they have plenty of opportunity to do so - initiatives to make the debate on the political future of Europe tangible have been launched and I would like to come back to the project that I mentioned yesterday which seems the most complete and operational.
The project of the French federalists. This column has given account of the sharp criticism of the Union of European Federalists-France with regard to the results of the summit. Its leader, Jean-Guy Giraud, has pointed out the way by which the European Parliament can bring the action that it recommends to life. The arrangements of the Lisbon Treaty give the European Parliament the possibility of opening a revision procedure of the Treaties from next year onwards, calling for the opening of a Convention composed essentially of MEPs and MPs. It will then suffice for a simple majority of member states (14 out of 27) to agree for this Convention to be convened and for it to begin the process of revising the Treaties. Public debate can then be engaged as part of the campaign for the 2014 European elections. The Convention could meet afterwards too, having a popular mandate to develop and decide on the draft reform.
The text that will result will then be submitted to the member states for approval by a referendum or via the parliamentary route. If a member state rejects it, it can be defeated by the majority or indeed leave the EU.
This plan does not anticipate the content of the reforms, but it points out the democratic way for defining them. It can thus be distinguished from the drafts that fix the principles, mechanisms and rules in advance.
If the Parliament so desires, the Convention recommended by Mr Giraud and the continuation of negotiations between the member states can move forward in parallel.
Aspects on hold. The European Council did not give its opinion last week on the political, institutional and economic sections of the future Europe. Yet debate has been started on a few aspects.
EUROPE 10752 set out the positions and suggestions that have been mooted - let me recall a few examples. Mario Monti has relaunched the idea of not putting on the same level the budgetary deficits resulting from the expenditure of the state, on the one hand, and the public investments bringing growth, on the other. François Hollande has insisted on the generalised separation between bank deposit, financing and speculative activities. Mariano Rajoy has underlined that during his first meetings at the European Council only budgetary discipline was discussed, while now growth and institutional architecture are discussed. I could go on with my quotations, adding the German, British and still other positions. Everything said leads to the same observation - the number of open questions is enormous, everything must still be negotiated - and all the more so as the European Commission has confirmed its intention of using the right of initiative to bring forward new proposals.
Mr Van Rompuy should take account of all these aspects when setting out his report for next June. After all, there will be much to negotiate. Why could this exercise - which will involve all the member states as well as the Community institutions - not advance alongside the project for a Convention described by Jean-Guy Giraud, if the European Parliament took the initiative for it?
The Parliament recognises progress. The European Parliament has in the meantime expressed its opinion and its majority does not share the opinion of the failure of the summit, while underlining the loopholes (see yesterday's edition of EUROPE). In response to the MEPs, Mr Van Rompuy has recognised that the summit was focused on the short term and that some ideas were not ripe, underlining that extremely sensitive areas for the member states are touched upon here - he knew that in principle it was impossible to resolve everything all at once. The European Parliament seems to have understood this.
In other words - the majority of the Parliament does not seem to share the extreme positions denouncing the failure of the summit (positions on which this column gave account yesterday). Of course, a few groups in the European Parliament have reaffirmed their opposition to the whole project that is under way, but the majority seem to accept the timetable of the summit that postpones until next June considerations on the aspects that are still be defined.
(FR/transl.fl)