The limits of ambitions. The EU must trust Sweden, the Country, its people and its leaders deserve it. Though at the same time it cannot ask it what is incompatible with its convictions, its mentality and its plans.
We talk, it is evident, of the Swedish Presidency of the Community Council. Trust in Sweden means knowing that the Prime Minister and the members of the Stockholm government will play with complete loyalty the game of the Presidency: respect for the priorities and timetables agreed, efforts to finalise the controversial dossiers, availability to suggest compromises based upon the European general interest and not its national interest, respect for the institutional balance, efficiency in the organisation of its works. Not to ask the impossible means not expecting institutional initiatives neither in the fields of foreign policy nor in that of defence (it being understood that the Swedish Presidency will respect the conditions of the Nice guidelines concerning the management of crisis and the prevention of conflicts, by placing emphasis on the civil aspect). Sweden is not part of the Euro area and thus does not chair the meetings of the Eurogroup (to be more precise: it will not even participate), but it proposes to contribute to loyally preparing, "as a country of the Presidency", the arrival of the single currency.
As for the future ambition, the "declaration of the future of the Union", written into the final Act of the Nice Treaty, foresees that the debate already opens under the Swedish Presidency and that a first report be submitted in June at the Gothenburg summit, but it will only be a preparatory document, and it will require, no doubt, waiting for the Belgian Presidency for the talks to become conclusive on the issue. We could wonder why Sweden has no greater desire for a united Europe, why a Europe with its foreign policy, its defence policy, its currency and a heavy weight in world business does not interest it more. It would require, to answer, starting from the initial raising of a public opinion convinced (in Sweden and Denmark) to acceding to a crucial economic building process without a view of political integration. According to certain documents recently published, British public opinion would have also been partially abused, though we do not redo history. The aim of the debate on the future of Europe which will open is precisely to compare the aims and objectives and to clarify if they coincide or if it is necessary to move towards the "two speed Europe".
Reasonable priorities. In the meantime, in this context of reasonable realism and moderate ambitions, the Swedish government announced with plenty of time its three priorities: enlargement, employment and environment. These are certain priorities, on condition - as recalled by Romano Prodi - that the desire to accelerate the accession negotiations does not imply the desire to enlarge the EU to dilute and weaken it. As for sustainable development (that is to say economic growth that does not destroy in an irreversible manner to conditions and possibilities of life on earth), it is a not only European priority, but global; everything that Sweden could gain in this field will be precious for humanity as a whole. The "Presidency's programme" (published in N° 2225 of our EUROPE/Documents series) also emphasises other priorities that do not surprise anybody: the proper running of the internal market, progress of the freedom, security and justice and transparency areas, "concern for economic efficiency and budgetary moderation". Some of the specific economic aims are explicitly cited: intellectual property (while encouraging "parallel imports" at the global level), the new rules for public markets, the action plan for financial services, the progress towards the "knowledge-based society", a "new strategy" in terms of chemical products.
While awaiting the Belgian Presidency… we must not minimise the importance of the dossiers cited above. They will determine a major part of the economic health of Europe, with a direct impact on the daily lives of citizens and on their view of the EU. Any progress would be welcome. Though it is obvious that for the major debate on the post-Nice and the future of Europe it will be necessary to wait for the Belgian Presidency. Why not start talking about it immediately? Why not tomorrow in this section?