Better than Joschka Fischer and Jacques Chirac. The EU in counting on the Swedish Presidency of the Council to secure concrete and pragmatic results this semester, and, next semester, on the Belgian Presidency to rekindle reflection on Europe's future (see this section in yesterday's bulletin). Confidence in Belgium does not stem from some kind of sentimental or ill-thought-out yearning. It is based on the intentions and projects set out by Guy Verhoftadt. The speech on the "Vision of Europe" he made before the European Policy Centre on 21 September last is the clearest, most explicit and most reassuring among the speeches that had already been made in the year 2000 by presidents, prime ministers or foreign ministers of Member States.
True, the speeches of Joschka Fischer and Jacques Chirac were more broadly reported on and had greater effect. Germany and France clearly have more powerful news coverage than Belgium. Fischer and Chirac had the great merit of rekindling the debate and arousing a great deal of reaction; but their texts left misunderstanding behind them and did not provide clear answers to fundamental questions. The notions of federalism and European constitution were dangled before the public, opening up the gates to a flood of stances, often superficial, void of solid conceptual foundations. "Federalism" and "constitution" are words that provide satisfaction to those who utter them, they fill the mouth; why deprive oneself of them? There were ideas and imagination in Fischer's speech, but the choices were unclear. There was a certain gusto in what Jacques Chirac had to say, but the inspiration was clearly intergovernmental and the institutional balance that lays at the root of the EU was given a rather rough ride.
Exceeding the "four points" chosen in Nice. The density and precision of Guy Verhofstadt's speech are much different. Our bulletin reported on it at the time, within the limits allowed by an article. Personally, I regret not having devoted the commentary on it that it deserved. But it's never too late, especially considering that the author of the speech will chair the December Summit in Laeken/Brussels which (we quote Annex IV of the Treaty of Nice) will adopt a "declaration containing appropriate initiatives" to further the "debate, both more wide-ranging and deeper on the future of the European Union". The speech by the Belgian Prime Minister tells us in what spirit and with what goals his government intends tackling the task bestowed upon it from July "in cooperation with the Commission and with the participation of the European Parliament". This speech guarantees that the wide-ranging debate that will be initiated will not be limited to the four points cited in Nice (power-sharing between the EU and Member States, status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, simplification of the treaties, role of national parliaments); the importance of these four points goes without saying but they are far from exhausting what needs discussing to define the future of Europe.
From this point of view, Mr. Verhofstadt reassures us: he took a stance on the final goal, on the "Community method" (without concealing his disaffection with the way things are currently being run), on "enhanced cooperation", on the "democratic legitimacy" of the Institutions, and he concluded with "four interventions" which, according to him, should be decided upon immediately: an "economic and social pillar in the framework of Monetary Union"; "disassociating" Cfsp from the Secretary General of the Council; the "core of a European defence"; a process to move to majority voting in new areas without requiring a review of the Treaty. Each of these initiatives is explained and justified. As we can see, the subject matter of the broad-ranging debate lies there. Especially as the Commission and Parliament are to be closely involved.
The Commission's stance obviously still needs setting out, but several elements guarantee that it will not be hesitant. Firstly, the new depth of President Prodi's stances since October, after a year that may be qualified as a "period of learning". Secondly, certain reactions to the results secured in Nice, on the part of Mr. Barnier and Mr. Monti, for example. Thirdly, indications available on the document being drawn up on governance.
Parliament on the right track. The European Parliament cannot, by definition, have an unequivocal stance. It reflects all the currents, all the trends. But at a given time, it expresses itself through a majority. And the initial discussions in its Committee on Constitutional Affairs are more than encouraging (see bulletin dated 10 January, pp.4/5). The shortcomings of Nice were robustly denounced and Mr. Brok was able to claim, without being contradicted, that for the first time, a European Institution decided at back-step in European integration (regarding the modalities for voting in Council). The tendency emerging is not to urge national parliaments to reject the Treaty of Nice, as the result of that would be to block enlargement negotiations, but to make the judgement on this Treat, in a certain way, dependent on the magnitude and serious nature of the "wide-ranging debate" that is being initiated on the future of Europe. That seems to be the right way to judge the Treaty of Nice: "resigned acceptance" if it opens the door to the future, rejection if its content is "an end in itself". We must trust the firmness and balance of the Chairman of the Committee on Constitution Affairs, Giorgio Napolitano, to carry through this thrust, so that Parliament resolutely engages on the path of the future, using at most the opening left by the European Council in favour of a new working method, different to the classic IGC and involving national parliament and civil society in the debate.
The substantial coincidence of the guidelines of the future Belgian Presidency of the Council, of a reinvigourated Commission and a determined and combative European Parliament could justify our refusal to give-in to radical pessimism and retain hope, despite everything.
Note: we shall publish the essential parts of the speech by the Belgian Prime Minister in tomorrow's bulletin, in the "texts" section.