Forgetting the past. You need to despise truth or have an incredible lack of memory to see the Laeken Summit as a semi-failure. This, however, was the message to public opinion by various important media given the absence of any decision on where Agencies are to be located. I say "lack of memory" since it is important to remember a few basic points. For many a long year, the EU refused to discuss its objectives, ambitions and aims. Just a few months ago, the idea of a Convention even did not have full support. The words "Constitution" or "constitutional texts" were rejected out of hand by some Member States and the idea of the Common European Foreign and Defence Policy being announced "operational" was not even considered. All this changed at Laeken.
Ridiculous approach. The EU went further than the negotiating system that had been used for drawing up all previous Treaties by deciding that intergovernmental negotiations would be preceded by a Convention where there are far more direct representatives of the population and Community Institutions than representatives of the executive powers. If the Convention functions the way it should, its conclusions will provide a springboard for the new Treaty. It is not being asked to elaborate a few ad hoc institutional reforms (modest, half successful outcome of the last intergovernmental negotiations in Amsterdam and Nice), but to answer vital questions about the future of Europe, its responsibilities, tasks and ambitions. The EU announced that its Common Security and Defence Policy was operational and it outlined its economic and social ideas (broadly or in detail) deciding to formally adopt the idea of development guided by "ethical" principles (the word is used in the Declaration). Far from being a semi-failure, the Summit that approved the Laeken Declaration marks a crossroads in the history of building Europe. The criticism that the declaration asked questions without answering them is ridiculous - the great innovation is that it asked the Convention to respond rather than doing it itself!
Guy Verhofstadt's clear idea. The Belgian Prime Minister's obstinacy paid off. He had a clear idea of what he wanted from the Laeken Declaration - that it should expressly recognise shortcomings and mistakes in the way the Union is run and why public opinion is losing interest, while signalling how to turn this around. The first draft of the text was not acceptable because it gave the impression that the European Community had been lacking in political objectives and vision from the beginning and did not recognise its significance and its essential achievement - ending conflict and clashes between Member States forever. Moreover, the way the questions raised are formulated gave the impression that the answers had already been found, which some Member States could not accept; while other countries saw too strong a trend to renationalise "Community policies". The Belgian Prime Minister took account of these comments and spent a long time redrafting the document with his advisers and staff. The faults were corrected (though there is still half a line that I don't like) and the declaration really sets out the future of European with a multitude of basic concepts and firm commitments. Several parts of it merit our attention here, as do the Presidency Conclusions (published along with the Declaration in our special Sunday edition). I invite readers to examine the documents word by word with me, starting with a few areas where (as we will see) we have a few surprises in store.
A well balanced Presidency. The decision of who will be the Convention's Chairman deserves an immediate response. I was not expecting the formulation of a triple Presidency, a brilliant Belgian innovation that got round some reluctance in terms of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and balanced the piloting of the Convention. Over the years, Giscard d'Estaing's European convictions have matured and ripened and for some time now, his positions do not merit the fears (expressed in some capital cities) that he favoured the intergovernmental method. Alongside Jacques Delors he came out in favour of a structured avant-garde in the event that the ambitions of the current and the future Member States are too divergent. Standing next to him (remaining firm on the basic principles) Jean-Luc Dehaene will be able to lead the necessary research process to have a strong majority view (and if possible consensus) expressed by the Convention; and Giuliano Amato will add the subtle touch to the search for appropriate wording. The Convention's Presidency combines the necessary qualities - authority and noble vision from the Chairman and ability to negotiate and formulate from the two vice-Chairmen.
(F.R.)