To mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome, Agence EUROPE has dipped into its unparalleled archives and is republishing articles from 1957, 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997 and 2007 that reported on the celebrations of this event. EUROPE is also publishing the editorials of its own 'founding fathers', which analysed the match between the treaties and the challenges faced, decade by decade, in the European integration project.
See the first five instalments of our commemorative series: 1957 (see EUROPE 11748), 1967 (see EUROPE 11749), 1977 (see EUROPE 11750), 1987 (see EUROPE 11751), 1997 (see EUROPE 11752).
Background
The Berlin Declaration was signed on Sunday 25 March 2007 as the European leaders started reflecting on how to get out of the institutional deadlock in which the Union found itself since the French and Dutch rejection in 2005 of the draft treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
Believing that this declaration was too vague to be effective, Ferdinando Riccardi, Agence Europe's editor-in-chief, suggests several paths for thinking about the future of the EU, among which was an appropriate interpretation of enhanced cooperation – an arrangement at the core of the 2017 Rome Declaration (see other article).
For Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a former French president tasked with steering the Convention on the future of Europe between 2002 and 2003, enhanced cooperation must enable "progress and not exclude", and especially not create categories between member states "as if there was a Europe for the 'good' leaving the 'bad' behind".
SUGGESTIONS FOR GETTING REFLECTION ON FUTURE OF EU OFF TO A GOOD START
Two concepts. How can two different concepts on the future of Europe be reconciled? How can the difficult and inescapable reflection/negotiation kick off in a positive way? There is no question of dividing Europe into two categories: the goodies (those in favour of integration) and the baddies (those who are opposed to it).
All the ideas expressed are respectable; they correspond to the mentality, character and history and people of each country. Over the years, the positions have actually got partially closer; the federalists recognise that national identities should be respected and that the aim is not to create a European super-state; the adversaries of integration accept transfers of competencies to Europe (even in areas such as defence and energy) and more majority voting. Nonetheless, two opposing concepts remain.
In Great Britain, the restrictive thesis won out when Tony Blair admitted last year that his attempt to place his country at the centre of European construction had failed: “The dilemma of a British prime minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe; and you betray Britain: be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home and be utterly without influence in Europe”.
At the same time, some countries of Central and Eastern Europe are still making a priority out of affirming their national identity in relation to European integration (which is partly understandable for those that lost their identity or risked losing it under Stalin). The result is that certain of these countries create the impression of wanting to keep the benefits of accession (solidarity, financial support) by neglecting their responsibilities (but the very recent softening of the Polish position is already significant: EUROPE 9389).
Three preliminary suggestions. Faced with this situation, courage is needed to begin reflecting on other possibilities. It is understandable that Angela Merkel's responsibility for presenting the June European Council with a “roadmap” on the constitutional relaunch means that she is striving to obtain a compromise that is acceptable to everyone in such a vague way that no-one will take umbrage: a simplified treaty that citizens understand, to be negotiated in a few months and signed next December, followed by ratification by all member states in 12-14 months so that it can enter into force before the 2009 European elections. But she alone is aware of the “red lines” that should not be overstepped, as drawn up by the different governments in secret bilateral consultations (and which are still going on).
Other European figures, who are not obliged to keep schtum, are speaking out more openly. I'll leave the candidates in the French presidential elections aside, two of whom have explicitly referred to a Europe of two circles; they have tactical reasons for inserting their country into the first one and thereby avoiding the repercussions of a no vote in a referendum on the constitutional treaty.
I prefer to look at other starting points. Jacques Delors, the former president of the European Commission, considers it “elementary” that heads of government “talk to each other about divisions between them”, instead of extending a silence that has lasted for decades and which, if it persists, would lead to the gradual unravelling of the European Union.
Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker warned against keeping simplistic formulas in the first part of the Constitutional Treaty and abandoning the rest. He declared: “We should not abandon the progress we decided upon when negotiating the third part of the treaty. It seems essential to me to keep the balances between the three parts rather than putting a cross on one or other part”.
Valéry Giscard D'Estaing [a former French president tasked with steering the Convenion on the future of Europe between February 2002 and July 2003] spoke out against the risk of an incorrect interpretation of “strengthened cooperation” (therefore criticising the two circle approach); “This mechanism must allow us to go forward and not exclude. Strengthened cooperation is presented as an exclusion procedure, as if there were a Europe for the 'goodies', leaving the 'baddies' outside. The reverse is what needs to be done. We have 27 members and the new members are often as pro-European or even more so than the others. A project needs to be announced and proposed to all members. If some refuse, the others go forward without them but they will do this because of the refusal of certain members”.
Here are three recommendations: that heads of governments speak to each other about Europe's ambitions and objectives; that we do not call for the third part of the Constitutional Treaty to be thrown out because balance needs to be safeguarded; and that strengthened cooperation is interpreted correctly. Three ideas that will get the reflection and, in my opinion, the inevitably tough negotiations, off to a good start.
Ferdinando Riccardi (22/3/2007)
A BERLIN DECLARATION TOO VAGUE TO BE EFFECTIVE
Without popular impact. I do not at all believe that the Berlin Declaration will have an impact on the people. The admirable intention of having a brief and readable text that is also acceptable to all member states has led to essential concepts and words being masked or concealed.
The term “enlargements” disappears from the future objectives because some governments believe future accessions must be subject to internal consolidation (hence to institutional reform), while others believe further accessions should remain free of conditions, including for Turkey. The concept therefore becomes the opening of the EU, in parallel to and on the same level as the determination to deepen it.
How can citizens be expected to get excited about such subtleties? Let us take another example: should single currency be counted among the EU's successes if some countries are not part of it? The compromise reached in the text consists of mentioning the euro and the internal market in one and the same phrase, bringing together the achievement so dear to continental countries and the achievement which, for the British, is the EU's “raison d'être” (on condition that this market is open to the world as a whole).
I could go on to cite other examples. The main objectives of the next few years (the fate of the constitutional treaty, renegotiation of EU spending, the definition of common policies) are encompassed in a general phrase about establishing the EU on a common renewed base by the European elections of 2009. This is so vague that the element which counts, i.e. the deadline, goes unnoticed by the uninitiated - and orally, in Berlin itself, the heads of government have already expressed their differences over this deadline (see following page).
The overall result lacks lustre and inspiration, with its catalogue of words that are indeed inevitable but have been harped on about for so long that they go unnoticed by readers: peace, freedom, democracy, tolerance, security, justice, prosperity, solidarity. All this might one day be useful - for going down in history. But, for the moment, citizens ignore the Declaration or pass over it distractedly, like a list of stale banalities.
Ferdinando Riccardi (27/3/2007)
Brussels, 23/03/2007 (Agence Europe) - As announced earlier (EUROPE 9391), the German EU Council presidency forwarded its final version of the “Berlin Declaration” to the member states on Thursday evening. The Declaration will be signed on Sunday 25 March in Berlin during the informal meeting of EU heads of state and government on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome by the presidents of the three Community institutions: - Angela Merkel (Council), José Manuel Barroso (Commission) and Hans-Gert Pöttering (European Parliament).
The text is no longer challenged by any of the delegations since the Czech Republic lifted its last reservations on Friday, mainly on the 2009 deadline included in the text, to complete and implement EU reform. On Friday morning, Chancellor Angela Merkel held telephone conversations with President Vaclav Klaus and Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who were still sticking to their objections to the 2009 deadline on Thursday, as the first half of 2009 will be when the country holds the EU presidency. During these conversations, Czech objections were lifted, German sources say.
Published in the 23 official languages of the EU, the declaration is drafted in simple terms, written from the point of view of European citizens (most sentences beginning with “we”). The text begins by hailing the major historical achievements of European unification (peace, prosperity, unity, and the overcoming of differences) to which all member states have contributed. A direct reference is made to the peoples of the new Central and Eastern European member states, saying it is their determination to be free that has allowed an end to be put to the artificial division of Europe. “We”, the citizens of Europe, have drawn lessons from history and from bloody conflicts, and, today, we have the “joy” of living together as was never possible before, the declaration states.
There is then a reminder of the main shared values and ideals of the Union: - dignity of individuals, respect and defence of fundamental rights, freedom, democracy, respect, tolerance, security, justice, solidarity, etc. The European Union is a “unique” democratic body of member states and European institutions, based on equality and solidarity, defending a fair balance between the interests of the member states, the declaration points out.
The European Union is faced with many challenges that do not stop at national borders. “Our” response to such challenges is the European Union, the text points out, as it is only by acting together that we can safeguard our “ideal of European society”. The European model is made up of economic success and social responsibility, it stresses. The internal market and single currency strengthen the Union, which will allow it to influence globalisation according to its own ideals and values. The fight against terrorism and organised crime is another challenge facing the Union but this fight must be carried out in respect of citizens' rights and freedoms. At the international level, the Union defends freedom and development and action against poverty, hunger and disease. At this level, it must keep its role as leader, the declaration states. “We” also want to act together with regard to energy policy and in the fight against climate change, it is written.
No explicit reference is made to future enlargements, but the declaration reaffirms the “opening” of the EU while at the same time stressing the “resolve” of member states to stabilise and consolidate integration.
The future of the Constitutional Treaty is not mentioned in the text which simply underlines the need for permanent reform of the Union. It goes on to conclude with a commitment, the aim being to “renew the Union's collective commitment” by 2009.
The fact that the Declaration will be signed only by the three presidents, and not by all the heads of state and government, does not make the text any less important, it was pointed out by the German presidency. With their signature, the presidents politically commit their respective institutions in favour of the principles and objectives described in the text, including that of reforming the Union by 2009, presidency sources explained on Friday. They recall in this context that only the legally binding international agreements (like the Treaties) require the signature of all heads of state and government. On the other hand, other texts, ,like the Charter of Fundamental Rights, were only signed by the presidents of the Community institutions, while others still, like the Laeken Declaration of December 2001 were adopted by acclamation only.
The signing of the Declaration will be preceded during the morning by a ceremony (attended by Maurice Faure of France, the sole remaining signatory of the 1957 text) and speeches by the three presidents, Merkel, Barroso and Pöttering, as well as the Italian prime minister, Romano Prodi, whom Ms Merkel asked to speak of the various historical stages of European integration since 1957 (as a “visible reference” to Italy and Rome as a place where the Treaties were signed 50 years ago, the German presidency stressed).
The ceremony will be followed on Sunday afternoon with a working lunch during which the question of preparing the June Council and the role of the EU in the world will be raised. It will also provide an opportunity for Angela Merkel to pay homage to Jacques Chirac's European commitment and who will be attending his last European summit. On Saturday, the informal Head of State and Government meeting will be opened at the beginning of the evening with a concert by the Berlin Philharmonic orchestra, followed by dinner with the German president, Horst Köhler.
Helmut Bruls
(EU) EU/50th ANNIVERSARY: ANGELA MERKEL INSISTS THAT EUROPE HAS NOT YET BEEN ACQUIRED AND MUST CEASELESSLY BE DEFENDED
Brussels, 26/03/2007 (Agence Europe) - During the course of the treaty signing ceremony on Sunday in Berlin, the acting president of the European Council, Angela Merkel pointed out that the united Europe of peace and democracy had not yet been acquired and had to be fought for every day. In her speech to Heads of State and governments, Ms Merkel said “let us be honest: 50 years of the Treaties of Rome - in the context of history that is hardly more than the blinking of an eye. And whether it will one day be more than that, whether on 25 March 2057 the centenary of the Treaties of Rome will be celebrated in a Europe of peace and freedom, democracy and the rule of law? We do not know.”
Ms Merkel also said that what European had brought to the European people should not be taken for granted, “All of it must be repeatedly strengthened and defended anew. Stagnation means regression. Building trust takes decades. And overnight it can be undermined. Any cleavage will soon have Europe out of step - sooner than some might think. In short, European unification must be striven for and secured time and time again. That is our guiding mission for the future. That is what is at the heart of today's anniversary celebrations”.
The German presidency said that globalisation compelled Europe to deal with external influences in future, which was why, “A common Foreign and Security Policy in Europe is therefore absolutely vital. But, of course, this policy should not be isolationist but must be based on cooperation with partners outside Europe. I firmly believe that close, amicable relations with the United States of America and a strong NATO are and will remain in Europe's fundamental interest”.
Commission president, José Manuel Barroso insisted on maintaining and reinforcing the “Community method”, as well as subsidiarity in European integration, “My vision of Europe is not one where only European institutions promote unity and member states defend diversity. A real partnership is where European institutions respect diversity and national governments promote unity. That's why we need the Community method and subsidiarity”.
The president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering highlighted the democratic evolution experienced by the European integration project over recent years, “Whereas in 1957 the Treaties of Rome were signed at a meeting of governments and diplomats, today I am grateful to be able to represent the citizens of the EU…This is a symbol of the democratic road that the peoples of Europe have travelled since 1957”.
In the “Berlin Declaration”, the presidents of the three institutions - Council, Commission and European Parliament - set themselves the task of reforming the European Union and getting a new treaty to enter into force before the European elections in June 2009. This goal is expressed in much vaguer terms in the last part of the declaration where the three institutions make a commitment, “we are united in our aim of placing the European Union on a renewed common basis before the European Parliament elections in June 2009”. The lack of precision in the text also led the president of the European Parliament to emphasise to the press that the 2009 deadline must be included as soon as the new reforms are applied, following completion of the ratification process for the future Treaty, which will, “perhaps have another name” to that of the Constitutional Treaty.
Helmut Brüls
Key dates