Worst has been avoided. Among the three possibilities on offer, the Heads of government did not choose the worst, neither did it choose the best. In the order of preferences, the possibilities were a) an agreement on a good constitution close to the Convention's draft; b) disagreement on some of the aspects, involving the postponement of the decision; c) a compromise on a watered down constitution. On the evening before, judgement was almost unanimous: if the first possibility appeared impossible, it was preferable to point out the partial disagreement rather than agree to mutilating the draft.
It is true that in the past Europe has gone forward by way of compromise that was not always totally satisfactory or quite clearly unsatisfactory. This time the way for small steps are ruled out as the constitution is not simply a regulation to improve later on. It is designed to last and it would be very difficult to amend it later. Including in the constitutional treaty, a method of majority voting as decided during that sinister night in Nice, would have meant the EU would have dragged with it , over a long period of time or indefinitely, a decision making procedure that largely lacked legitimacy. Keeping the composition of the Commission to a "Commissioner per country" formula" without any radical corrections would have meant getting rid of the authority an legitimacy of the key institution of the Community method. It is a hundred time better to postpone the decision rather than take legitimacy away from the institutions.
Convention heritage not lost. It's a shame as we should not forget that a substantial agreement existed on almost all the other aspects of the constitution, which involved considerable and substantial progress for European construction. But this progress has not been lost. If the overall agreement comes into being very soon, which is possible, a few months later, in order to obtain a draft that will, in any case need another two years to get the ratification from all signatory counties, then this is not a long time in the long and tormented history of a united Europe. On the other hand, if fractures persist we will be treated to the initiatives of those who want to go forward in another way: with 25 in framework of the Union or on the margins if necessary.
Why this certainty? Because it is totally unthinkable that France, Germany and Belgium will give up on the agreements that have already been reached on the Europe of Defence. The other countries will follow them, including in this aspect, Great Britain, as it has obtained the guarantees it needed with relations with NATO and the USA. The Europe of defence, even within the limits agreed to, is a sensational achievement; the declaration and explanation from Guy Verhofstadt are essential in this regard.
He said that there was no reason to be pessimistic. He explained that the Convention had bequeathed a heritage which would not be lost and which would bear fruit, perhaps this would be a little late, he said, but that this was a certainty. Italian vice prime minister Giancarlo Fini said that "by damaging this heritage, we are betraying Europe". With his beard and look of an old and wise man, Louis Michel, with his rich experience pointed out that they were advancing and when the time came the others would follow, including the British.
The risk of deflating public opinion. The risk of discouraging the public should not be ignored. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was right. "The media has a strange way of presenting events", he wrote just before the IGC session, anticipating that a bad compromise would have been presented as a great success, simply because it would have had the appearance of one. If fact a substantial agreement on a good constitution, not yet approved because of reservations from some Member States on such or such an aspect would have compelled the final decision to be postponed and would have been presented in the headlines as "the failure of Brussels". In his "Convention paper" signed by vice presidents Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene, he pointed out, "reality is almost exactly the opposite"
He was a good prophet. Most of the headlines that I've seen on Sunday (most of the papers had not gone out) effectively affirm that the summit was a "failure" and on all the pages they used terms such as "fiasco" or "the end of Europe". Public opinion, already partly perplexed before enlargement and disorientated by the events at the IGC is in danger of getting the impression of failure, accompanied by discouragement and distrust of European construction itself, which, on the contrary, continues to go forward and is currently more necessary than ever. All those who have a sense of responsibility, members of the institutions, parliamentarians, commentators, should now feel the need to clarify the reality of the situation.
(F.R.)