A successful dramatisation. This time, the dramatisation of the Summit has fully succeeded. We have lost count of the warnings against the risk of Europe collapsing, sensational headlines and incendiary declarations. All well and good: we shall not be able to say this time that a European event is happening amid indifference within public opinion. But the sheer amount of dross in this avalanche of information and stances! The real is mixed with the fallacious, sometimes the heart rules the head.
Some of the dramatisation has been sought by politicians themselves, aware of the need to alert public opinion on the magnitude of the stakes: failure in Nice could mean institutional deadlock for the Union, rendered incapable of taking decisions or working correctly, and a slow-down in "European reunification" represented by the membership of countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The Presidency has logically warned against these risks, expressed its intention of prolonging work into Sunday, spoken of the "longest Summit in the Community's history". The President of the Commission has formally appealed to both France and the United Kingdom to introduce flexibility in their initial stances on some delicate issues. At the same time, from different capitals, very firm declarations were arriving on the "red line" that such or such a government would not agree to cross. Parliamentary sources have announced that the European Parliament may reject the results of Nice if they were found to be inadequate (which would probably lead to their rejection by one or other national parliament). And claims by which the "risk of failure" is serious this time have multiplied.
The dramatisation has exceeded the desired level, for example in the affair of "Germany's weight" and the claimed conflict with France on the subject, to the point where the two parties have tried to play it down by guaranteeing that there is no Franco-German problem but a general problem that especially involves other Member States. Mr. Vedrine declared: "there are always tensions before important summits…"
Javier Solana's Realpolitik. In the last resort, the High Representative for Cfsp appealed for Realpolitik (1) calling for possible progress to be sought, without demanding concessions that in the current situation, he believes to be unrealistic, and without forgetting that European construction is moving forward, that this year results have been considerable, with results that, three years ago, were what some dreams were made of. According to him, one has not to risk jeopardizing this inestimable heritage that is growing from year to year by aiming today for results that are not ripe. He then made an explicit reference to the aforementioned appeals by Romano Prodi to such or such a head of government (and Prodi replied that it was his duty to "put everyone before their responsibilities and appeal to the European minds of the heads of government).
We are sailing in irrational territory. Mr. Solana is partly right: there actually are certain concessions that, in the current political circumstances, such or such a government finds hard to grant. But the work of the IGC at the level of foreign ministers has already largely taken account of them and certain goals have been dropped. The formula "one Commissioner, one country" is accepted, at least for a certain number of years. The move to qualified majority voting for social issues has been set aside. Abandonment of the right of veto in the area of taxation, on the other hand is still very controversial, as is that of asylum and immigration, and that of funding the Structural Funds.
But here we are sailing in irrational territory. The move to majority voting is not at all sought for the aforementioned sectors in their entirety, but for specific aspects, linked, depending on the case, to the functioning of the single market, to combating tax evasion and financial crime, to Europe's ability to negotiate effectively with third countries or to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. However, rational explanations, documented, set out in draft texts, seem to have had no effect in this case. For France, the right of veto in trade policy means defending cultural diversity. For the United Kingdom, the majority rule in some aspects of taxation means giving up the ability to set its income taxes. For others, to agree to majority voting for certain social rules amounts to losing control of social security. None of these claims is true, and the authorities responsible know the truth, but how can they take on the threats, the political attacks, manipulation of public opinion? Some non-governmental organisations, intoxicated by the demonstrations in Seattle (which for their part were mainly justified and useful) are clamouring for the maintaining of unanimity for decisions on trade policy and stating that if this is not the case the European Commission (and Mr Lamy in particular) would impose a wild globalisation and complete freedom for trade without any precautions. All this right at the time the side-tracking of the "free trade areas" previously promised to all have disappeared from the Community horizon and Mr Lamy works to prepare a new negotiating round with the main aim introducing into the WTO environmental and competition considerations and the taking into account of the reaction of public opinion, by removing from the WTO panels the ability to draft rules on world trade in order to return it to the political leaders (2). We do not have the memory of opposition or reservations when the warning would have been useful; it is easy to play the hero now that the wind has changed and on the contrary they should support the efforts of Pascal Lamy.
The irrationality of part of the British press. Though there where the debate is sliding into madness, it is in a section of the British press. Do you know how "The Times" presented the common document by Germany and Italy (3) inviting the Nice Summit to set objectives for the new IGC in 2004? As a "secret plan by Rome and Berlin for a European super State!" with the printing as a facsimile of the text, to make it look like a confidential document, while it was distributed to the press and released on the Community web site. What does it call for in reality, this document? To carry out a more precise demarcation of the European Union and Member State competence, to separate more clearly the powers between the Community institutions and to simplify the Treaties so as to make them more simple and clear. That is to say exactly what is called for by those who want to avoid that Brussels meddles in affairs that do not concern the EU and that should remain in the hands of the Member States, all those who want to make the EU more transparent and closer to public opinion. Calls shared in London by all those who can maintain sanity. The hopes of part of the English press to present under a bad light everything that is prepared in Brussels and try to stir up public opinion against the European integration is not doubt legitimate: each to his opinions. What is strange is the credit that this press continues to benefit from over European affairs, when all it needs is to dive for one reason or another into the Community reality to understand the distortions practised in London. A staunch Brit such as Chris Patten started to realised; he defined the thesis of a super State supposedly prepared in Brussels as an incredible misconception, and said that "public opinion is excited by a media in a state of hysteria". Tony Blair has worked hard to place the relations of his country with the EU on a rational level and in accordance with his country's interests and those of Europe; this efforts risk costing him dearly with regard to the elections, and his present rigidity over a few subjects is nearly understandable. It is true that even Mr Prodi pushed on the British press his ideas on European administration and that an acting Prime Minister such as Giuliano Amato still uses the same source to talk of European agricultural policy…
We can see it, the climate is not for reciprocal concessions and certain Heads of Government will be forced to stand firm over some issues where reason allows to soften the starting positions. Personally, we do not believe in the catastrophes announced: if there is agreement in Nice, the basis will be relatively modest and partially unsatisfactory, both with regards to the transition to qualified majority as for the formation of the European Commission and the weighting of votes. Though, while waiting for better, the EU will continue to function and even progress; and enlargement, historic duty, will not be blocked. The true danger is thus not complete paralysis, unthinkable, but the slide towards realisations outside the Community framework, with the abandoning of the "Community method". Some large countries will between themselves do what would have become possible to do together, and come who will; and the Heads of Government will take the reigns and manage everything, to the detriment of the European general interest and especially that of the small countries who, outside the Community method, are not heavy enough in the face of colossus'. It would then be too late to regret it and lament.
Ferdinando Riccardi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(1) Interview of Javier Solana to "La Stampa" in Turin dated 6 December
(2) See this section in our bulletin of last 27/28 November, pages 3-4
(3) See out bulletin of 6 December, p.4.