Reality as a basis. Another comment of the Summit of the Three Big Countries- Germany, France, United Kingdom- is there any need ? Perhaps, as long as its objective is realistic and modest. No great wars of words for or against 'directoires', on the arrogance of some and the bad faith of others and so on, but a few considerations based on reality:
1. The letter signed by Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder and Tony Blair (reproduced in Nr 2360 of our series EUROPE/Documents, annexed to our bulletin of 21 February) relates almost exclusively to economic issues, but it cannot allude to a kind of 'directoire' (board of directors) for Three in this field, for the very simple reason that the UK is not part of the euro zone, and will thus remain outside governance projects in this zone. For the time being, this kind of governance is the only serious economic prospect for the EU. Mr Blair clearly wants in, but public opinion and several political forces in his country are either opposed or reluctant, and the press is by and large hostile.
2. As the euro remained on the sidelines, the letter doesn't really contain anything that wasn't in the preparatory work for the "Spring Summit" carried out by the European Commission and other bodies. To focus on research, eventually create the European patent, support innovation, update the European regulatory framework to the benefit of business, support families in order to buck demographic trends, extend access to high-quality healthcare to all citizens- all these are objectives which are always worth repeating and reaffirming, but they are far from new. The chorus in their favour is virtually unanimous. The letter of the "Six" went in the same direction; it would not have been hard to combine the text, save for a couple of finer points, with a bit of goodwill.
3. I only saw three points in which the letter of the Three differed from the European Commission's documents or the letter of the Six, namely:
- reaffirmation of the intention to limit Community expenditure to 1% of Union GDP. It was unthinkable that just a few weeks after signing a letter to this effect, the Three could change position. This is a controversial, delicate point, it comes as no surprise;
- requests to the Commission to: a) re-examine the legal framework for State aid, for a more effective support of innovation, micro-enterprises, and high-risk, long-term research; b) in its competition policy, take greater account of the specific traits of international competition and of Europe's much-needed industrial development. The debate on these subjects is already open, and the Commission basically shares the general ideas of the Three;
- the suggestion of appointing a Vice-President of the Commission, who would concentrate solely on economic reforms, so as to move the Lisbon programme on and to co-ordinate the work of the Commissioners in charge of it.
4. The suggestion on the Commission's internal functioning touches on a field which comes under the Commission itself and especially its President, but there's nothing astonishing in the substance. The imminent prospect (late October) of a Commission made up of 25 Commissioners and voting by simple majority cannot but be of concern to the larger countries, whose weight within it will be negligible. We have to expect them to step up the pressure either for changes to the Commission's inner workings, or to reduce its competencies and influence. Given the prospect of having 3 votes out of 25 in the Institution with sole right of initiative and very considerable executive powers (internal market, competition, agriculture etc), would you expect three countries with over 50% of the population and over 50% of its GDP not to try to change things ?
A single alternative for defence. The Three didn't touch upon defence this time, but they have already taken new initiatives without waiting for their Summit. The situation is clear: either the Constitution is approved, and then the "defence" part can be developed in a Community framework, or we stick with the Nice Treaty, which bans "reinforced co-operation" in this field, and then the Three (with a few other Member States) will take initiatives on the periphery of the EU, autonomously, without rules making it possible for countries to join in further down the line. Those taking part would be masters of the game, with neither the Commission nor the Council of 25 involved, and outside of any Community procedures. Is that what those governments which are keeping their reservations on the draft Constitution want? It's up to them- just don't come crying afterwards. (F.R.)