To end the reflections developed yesterday and the day before concerning the revival of the Franco-German friendship (see this section on 24 and 25 September), a few remarks remain to be added concerning the two most politicised issues: the European Constitution and defence Europe. In fact, the conclusions of President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder on this matter have developed their true importance one day later, when the British Prime Minister Tony Blair aligned himself to their position.
The United Kingdom agrees with the six founding countries. We already know that France and Germany support the present Constitutional endeavour and believe that the debate, which unfolded within the Convention, must not be renewed between the Heads of State and Government. The British government already made gestures supporting this view (see, among others, our bulletin of 11 September p. 7), but insufficiently clear at first sight, as part of the press continues to place the United Kingdom among the countries favouring a reopening of the negotiations within the IGC. Ambiguity is not possible, as Mr Schröder asserted: together we believe that we should not touch the result achieved by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, as, if we reopen the discussion, a new consensus will be difficult to achieve. I do not believe in some sort of 'conversion' by the United Kingdom, which would have seen it align itself with the highest Community building ambitions; more simply, the British government feels that the results from the Convention do not contain elements that are incompatible with the country's aims and that concessions made (undeniable, in relation to the starting positions) are acceptable from its point of view. Thus the official interpretations of the draft Constitution continue to diverge: the six funding countries and, as a whole, the European institutions will continue to place emphasis on the progress this Constitutions brings, while the British authorities, for tactical reasons, to minimise the scope, insist on the greater role of governments (a stable European Council President!), more than on the enhancement of the European Parliament's powers. It is not damaging, as, for the time being, the crucial point is the IGC's success, and from this point of view British support for the agreement in principal between the 'Six' is positive and will increase the difficulty for the reticent countries.
Unsurprising confirmation over defence. I doubt that the Franco-German/British summit changed the fundamental basis of the respective positions over defence Europe. The offering by Tony Blair concerning the possibility of European military operations without NATO support (either implemented at 25, if agreement exists, or among the interested Member States) was considered by a few commentators as a decisive step. In fact, in my opinion, this step was implicit in the acceptance of the draft Constitution, which foresees the possibility for 'structured cooperation' in terms of defence among the countries that wish to do so. I got the impression that Tony Blair is using, in this area, a tactic similar to that he successfully used with the Constitution: make reasonable concessions that satisfy the most ambitious countries and that allow the United Kingdom to remain firm over what it considers crucial (unanimity rule on taxation and for social security, for the crucial aspects of criminal law and for the system concerning own resources). The same will apply to defence: the concessions are seen as remarkable progress, but the time is still far (admitting it will arrive) when British aims will be comparable to those of Belgium, France and Germany.
Rather, I underline, in this area, the positive statements from certain central European countries, such as Hungary. This is the development that should be monitored.
Presidency in its place. To finish, I discuss the restrained nature of the Berlin mini-summit as it in great part concerned both Italy and Spain. According to certain sources, Silvio Berlusconi and Jose-Maria Aznar wanted to take part. The former, I feel should not have gone even if he was invited, in a similar manner as the Greek Prime Minister did not accept the invitation to the 'defence' summit between the most ambitious countries (France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg). The President of the European Council should not associated himself with meetings whose participation is limited; it is he who eventually arrange meetings open to all Member States. As for Mr Aznar, we should not forget the three in the mini-summit are members of the UN Security Council and want to concentrate in view of the debate over Iraq. Not forgetting that Spanish participation would have scuppered the significant result of the meeting: agreement over support for Giscard d'Estaing's draft Constitution. This result practically representing the main success of the mini-summit.
(F.R.)