The debate on tomorrow's Europe is developing well. No one can now dispute that it is essential and unavoidable (which was not the case but a few months ago). In this section, dated 31 January, we turned to the first elements that could be taken for granted. Since then some developments are noteworthy.
A formula gaining ground. This time Romano Prodi, who has often been accused of a lack of words that strike and make an imprint on one's memory, seems to have found the right formula to define the ongoing exercise: "debate on the re-shaping of the EU". To judge by the number of press headlines that, reporting on his speech in Strasbourg on Tuesday, have taken up these words, success was immediate. This formulation covers the content described effectively and efficiently by the Commission President before the European Parliament, spelling out: "the real questions, those our citizens raise". I have nothing to add to the summary of this speech published in our bulletin of 14 February, pp.4/5.
End of the terminology "post-Nice". This may be the last time I use the term "post-Nice" to define the debate on Europe's future, not only due to Prodi's fortunate formula, but also because certain parliamentarians have begun to react to this reductive formula that links this debate to the far from brilliant Nice Summit, from an institutional point of view that is. Klaus Haensch and McMillan-Scott made the same remark on whether this link should be made, preferring rather that one spoke of "debate on Europe's future". We must get away from definitions linked to texts and events known to specialists and turn to formulae that are more likely to be understood by everyone, even years or dozens of years later. The "Single Act" represents an important moment in the history of European construction, but how to cite it if seeking to be understood?.
The "three phases" can certainly not be taken for granted. The principle of a three-phase process is gaining ground, but one has to beware of taking it for granted. Let's recall these three phases: a) "open discussion", practically already underway, with the participation of all those who have something to say; b) "structured discussion", in which parliamentary institutions will have a special role, alongside governments and the Commission, and would lead to the drawing up of a new draft treaty; c) "short and decision-taking" Intergovernmental Conference, that is to say that will not have to reopen the debate but take final decisions.
How could such a process please governments and countries that no doubt reject the idea of "re-shaping", so dear to Romano Prodi? Given the state of public opinion in the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark (the latest Eurochamber survey confirmed it), compromises in "phase-2" are difficult to conceive, without radically reducing ambitions. And the aforementioned countries have a strong argument at hand: nothing would be served by drawing up a project that would most certainly be rejected by their parliaments and require everything to be stated again from scratch. How to answer? Rekindle the idea of a Treaty that would take effect between countries that ratify it, whatever the attitude of the others? The document that the Swedish Government has to prepare for the Gothenburg Summit will doubtless be quite vague in nature on this subject; we shall have to wait for the document that the Belgian Presidency will submit to the Summit of Laeken to get a better picture. But let's have no illusions: the battle has hardly begun. Meanwhile, the European Parliament and the Commission must take stances, and their attitude will carry considerable weight.
Can some shortcomings in the Nice Treaty be corrected? Discussions on the Nice Treaty have seen a significant development. The thoughts of Richard Corbett, summarised in yesterday's EUROPE, p.6, are important as the author is coordinator of the Socialist Group in the EP for constitutional affairs. He does not deny shortcomings in the Treaty, but observes that they are not irremediable. For example, the additional difficulties in the functioning of the Council will only occur in an EU of 27 members, which is not for tomorrow; between now and then, another Treaty will have been negotiated. And the anomaly in the number of parliamentarians set for Hungary and the Czech Republic can only be an EU "negotiating position", to be discussed with the countries concerned. Given the errors that can still be corrected, Mr. Corbett does see some areas of progress which are, for their part, definitive, and he doesn't hesitate: the Treaty must be accepted as the "post-Nice procedures offer a much better perspective than a resumption of the IGC". (F.R)