An initiative that shouldn't be over-dramatised. We must make sure that problems with the Constitution don't stop the EU from working normally and going forward, because there is a lot of important work underway. The list of results obtained and of initiatives underway indicated in this section yesterday were, by definition, approximate and incomplete. I emphasised measures which improve the functioning of the market, make it easier for companies to do business and have positive fall-out for the citizens, but there are others, the effects of which will be slower and more gradual. The agreement finally brokered on the headquarters of the agencies will allow them to be set up and start their work; the advantages of this will become apparent over time. The agreement with the European Space Agency will allow Europe to reinforce its presence in the essential field of space (see this column of 14 November), with positive effects for all citizens, even if they don't realise it yet. The new "public procurement" rules will improve and simplify this highly important area of economic activity. At the same time, the long and winding road towards common or harmonised rules for immigration and asylum will protect the rights of immigrants, whilst stepping up security, something all citizens are sensible of.
If this movement is to continue and pick up speed, and the implementation of the Lisbon strategy is to be launched in the spring, then Constitutional problems must not be allowed to create a climate of mistrust between the Member States, and of discouragement or scepticism in public opinion. Over-dramatising the initiative by six governments to set a 1% of Union GDP ceiling on future Community budgets must also be avoided (see our bulletin of 17 December, p.8), because, even if the Constitution had been approved, this position would in any case have been expressed in the context of the difficult discussions to come on the 2006/2011 financial framework. The real problem is knowing whether financial solidarity (in favour of the less well-off Member States) could possibly subsist on its own, if the spirit of global European solidarity becomes blurred, or disproportionately weak.
If European spirit settles back in tolerably after the shock of 13 December, the order of priorities for the Constitution to bounce back should, for my money, be as follows:
A. Consider that the current draft Constitution remains at the heart of Europe's objectives, and is indispensable for the efficiency and future of the enlarged Union. This may seem banal, because it should be self-evident. But it needs to be said, because the media's illustration of events may have left the public thinking that the Constitution is dead and buried. Comparisons with the EDC (which was killed off by the negative French vote) prove that this mistaken impression is even shared by members of parliament.
B. Keep a careful eye on the final compromises of "black Saturday". Confusion subsists about what really happened to: a) the adoption procedure for the Union budget; b) re-establishing the rule of unanimity in criminal, social and taxation fields (including the elements for which the Presidency's final official compromise brought in careful and conditional possibilities for majority voting); c) modalities for the creation of the common external service (under CFSP).
There was no debate in the IGC plenary on the latest compromises in these fields. I should clarify which texts president Berlusconi is referring to when he says he has sent the Irish Presidency a complete draft with only two points remaining open: the majority voting procedure in Council, and the composition of the Commission. Is all the rest really sorted? And how?
C. Consolidate, politically if not legally, the agreements reached, given the substantiation mentioned in the previous point, to stop any slippage backward.
D. Think calmly and coolly before launching initiatives to create a vanguard or pioneer group. The question is not whether there will be "reinforced co-operation"; we know full well that this is inevitable, it is explicitly mentioned in the draft Constitution, and it has, in any case, always existed. The question is whether it will be created as part of the Union, under the Constitution and open to all Member States according to pre-established procedures, or on the sidelines of the EU. In the absence of a Constitution, "Defence Europe" cannot happen within a Union framework, as the Treaty of Nice rules it out. It would be a new Community, breaking away from the Institutions and EU rules. It would mark the birth of two separate Europes, more than just a couple of projects some Member States are not taking part in. This is an essential point and I shall return to it, because the notions are neither clear nor uniform. (F.R.)