Thank you Ireland! How could I be anything other than grateful to the Irish Presidency of the Council? I now feel less isolated in my positive and "reasonably optimistic" attitude on Europe's prospects. There is nothing rhetorical or demagogic in Ireland's attitude: no sensationalist promises, no blind optimism, nothing like those who jump up and down shouting "Europe! Europe!", and whom General de Gaulle ridiculed. It is the adjective "positive" which best describes the Dublin spirit, in my view. The Prime Minister showed this spirit in two dossiers which are both essential and potentially incendiary: that of the Constitution, and that of the new financial perspectives, on which Bertie Ahern spoke with great dignity- and to this I will return. But today's subject is the Constitution.
The Irish Prime Minister has been particularly circumspect in the way he has taken up the Presidency. He will report to the European Council in March, and will promise nothing until then, not even to convene the IGC (intergovernmental conference) this semester. But after initial talks with his fellow Heads of Government, he has become more optimistic, as shown in his speech of 14 January to the European Parliament (see our bulletin of 15 January, page 4 and thereafter). It is true that he will not convene the IGC unless he sees real chances for its success, because "to fail again would have very serious consequences". But at the same time, he has shared the view of his Parliament about the urgency of concluding. This year will see a new European Parliament, a new Commission and new faces at the Summit: the newcomers will be justified in their ambition to leave their mark on the Constitution, part of what has been achieved to date will be forgotten, and most certainly less well-known, and there is the risk of having to start again from scratch. Without going too far in his promises, Bertie Ahern has given his word that he will not let pass any possibility of re-launching the IGC: if he sees any prospect of agreement, he will grab it with both hands.
Talks remain secret, but... These appraisals, less marked than yesterday's by what a colleague calls "ambient defeatism", were inspired by Mr Ahern in his bilateral talks. One of his co-workers said: "the signals the capitals are sending us are much more positive than we had hoped for". I cannot speculate on what Heads of Government might have said to each other bilaterally, because I have yet to be allowed to sit in on their meetings, but I will use as my starting point public texts, some of which are perhaps not as widespread as they deserved.
I'll start with France, which, as far as I know, has been the most vocal. We have, in this order, a speech by Jacques Chirac, a text by Dominique de Villepin, and one by Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The President of the Republic stressed the need for Europe to have its Constitution "in order to run efficiently, to answer the citizens' expectation and the better to take its place in the world", adding that "Europe is built on solidarity and not on blocking capabilities". On the pioneer group, he said: "within a Europe of 25, soon to be 27 and more, we cannot all proceed at the same pace. The most reluctant should not slow down those who are determined to go further and faster. Germany and France are naturally at the heart of the pioneer groups. I am forming the wish that we can go forward with the other founding countries, plus Great Britain, and all those old and new Member States who want to give extra soul and strength to the European Union".
Official France commits. In his text on "The architecture of tomorrow's Europe" (see this column on 7 January), the Foreign Minister stated that for France, reinforced co-operation is not outside the Union but within it, under rules to be defined by the Constitution. And here are three positive statements by Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin in the text published on 16 January in several European newspapers: a) "the work of the Convention on the future of Europe is, for us, a European achievement"; b) "we believe that agreement (on the Constitution) is possible", but if it fails, "countries ambitious for the Constitution will work together to convince the others by their action"; c) "we must help the Stability Pact to evolve, to take greater account of changes in the economy". So as not to leave anything out, having criticised the instability of the exchange rates between the dollar and the euro by inviting the "authorised voices of Europe" to get this message out, and having pronounced himself against the "financialisation of the economy and against the disindustrialisation threatening our continent", the Prime Minister concluded: "today, I have confidence in Europe".
These positions are significant, because some observers feel that France didn't really
…/…
want a compromise on the Constitution, as it preferred an intergovernmental vanguard. These suspicions were excessive to say the least, and do not represent the French position.
Polish openness. The second country whose authorities have spoken several times is Poland. Foreign Minister Vlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, in particular, said that it was "reasonable" that agreement could be reached on the Constitution before the European elections in June; otherwise, the presence of Eurosceptics in the next European Parliament may grow. He feels that agreement is not only reasonable, but also entirely possible on the institutional questions and on reinforced co-operation, as his country is "entirely disposed to take part in the one on defence as defined before Christmas", and he is not opposed to such co-operation on other subjects, because "the more the Union grows, the more flexibility is indispensable", as long as "limits are not exceeded, threatening the union's cohesion". The minister objected to the fact that at the last IGC Summit "nobody took the trouble to check whether or not we were disposed to make concessions". Willingness to compromise was reaffirmed in a text signed by the minister (published in "Le Monde", and others), which said: "it is with great attention that we will, in future, listen to our partners' arguments (...) we are not blind to their reasoning, arguments and expectations". The minister has not, it is true, given up on the Nice formula on voting systems in the Council; but it would be unreasonable to ask him to, just a few weeks ahead of national elections, given that after the failure of the Brussels Summit, Prime Minister Leszeck Miller was welcomed in Warsaw like a conquering hero, because he had given no ground on Poland's rank within the Union.
If I have talked so much about France and Poland, it's because their governments were considered to be at the head of the disagreements which toppled December's Summit; the others in pole position on the institutional dossier were Spain and Germany. José Maria Aznar has already expressed regret at the absence of debate at the December Summit, and far from "Nice or bust", his tactic has for several weeks been to invite opponents of the Nice formula to present alternative formulae themselves. He is thus open to discussion. And Joschka Fischer has been trying to mollify the Polish.
Bases for institutional compromise seem to exist. My conclusion on differences on institutional issues is that the basis for compromise already exists, given that the Nice formula cannot be the starting point (based on the allocation of a pre-set but arbitrary number of votes to each Member State for majority voting), but the "double majority" retained by the Convention must be. I attentively read arguments in favour of Nice, but found nothing convincing in them, apart from Madrid and Warsaw's determination to keep the artificially high number of votes for Spain and Poland. Double majority is fairer, simpler, and more transparent; Europe must not give up on this, in jostling to reach a compromise on the percentages needed to form a majority. I have heard of a couple of ingenious solutions, the last being one by former European Parliament President José-Maria Gil Robles (still an MEP, and current Chairman of the International European Movement), who suggested a "degressive proportionality" to calculate the necessary population to reach 60% of the European population. There are several solutions on the table: they need to be analysed, assessed and discussed. The Constitution is not going to collapse over this dossier.
The trap of other differences. I am quite worried about the traps set by other differences of opinion which were not discussed at December's Summit. In his "national" press conference after the Summit, Tony Blair said that the main thing was to "bank" the results of the IGC, including the concessions proposed by Mr Berlusconi to him bilaterally (see our special bulletin of 14 December, page 5). As well as what was achieved in the Convention, such as the permanent Presidency of the European Parliament, the British Prime Minister talked of keeping unanimity for taxation, legal questions, financial perspectives, and all mention of the European Foreign Minister. For the Irish Presidency, these last-minute compromises, which were not discussed by the Summit, just put together in talks and which do not exist on paper, do not exist. The former Presidency did not put together a summary of Mr Berlusconi's personal suggestions; not even the Italian Foreign Minister was able to do so. And in Paris, Bertie Ahern's interlocutors stressed that negotiations must be based on the text that came from the Naples meeting, and that in particular, France refused to give any ground on the application of qualified majority. Even the composition of the Commission remains open for France.
We can see it: coming down from general principles to the details, there are more and more traps, and Bertie Ahern is quite right to remain on his guard, without taking all these wonderful above-mentioned conversations at the letter, because it has been known (apparently) for politicians to lie. But the future's looking brighter. (F.R.)