After last week's European Summit, the attention of the media and commentators has logically focused on the two essential issues: approval of the Constitution by the IGC and the momentary failure to decide who will be the next Commission president. However, in reality, the Heads of Government adopted several other texts on a vast range of issues. Although most are of rather meagre significance, as they do not go beyond the stage of encouragement and wishes, some deserve more attention. For full details, I refer back to our Special Edition of 20 June which reproduces them in full, as well as our bulletin of 19 June, which largely anticipated the content. For those who consider that it would be a waste of time to read it in full (and they would not be completely wrong), I shall summarise with a few comments.
Area of freedom, security and justice: a new "Tampere programme". This area, which is one of the main areas to be worked on in tomorrow's Europe, is dealt with in great detail. The Summit notes the positive results reached and launches a new "Tampere programme", that the Council and the Commission are invited to prepare and that it proposes to adopt by the end of the year, bearing in mind citizens' expectations (for whom this "area" is a real priority, as surveys prove). The top priority of States in security issues is confirmed but the Heads of Government speak explicitly of the "need for European added value", specifying a number of guidelines and mainly calling on the Council to approve a "new anti-drug strategy" for the period 2005-2012 by the end of the year. In the specific field of fighting terrorism, the need for EU action is confirmed in several fields: intelligence capabilities, flow of information toward Europol, cooperation between Europol and Eurojust, and, above all, - the essential element that has been too neglected in the past - countering terrorist funding (whatever advantages such transactions may have for the financial institutions).
A paragraph calls for the fight against terrorism to be fully included in the EU's external policy. Operational proposals on the best way to achieve this are required for December and could have repercussions on the conditions and content of agreements with third countries.
Re-activating the Lisbon Strategy. The second main chapter evoked is that on economic and social issues, including employment and the environment. The European Council gives a mitigated report on progress made in implementing the "Lisbon Strategy" and affirms the resolve to make the process move forward, by highlighting specific issues. We know the importance that the economic world attributes to speeding up reforms (the employers' organisation, UNICE, never stops insisting on the need to improve competitiveness in Europe), and how attached the trade union world is to striking a balance between the social and economic chapters. Among the "major breakthroughs" made, the Summit cites: financial services, the recognition of professional qualifications, Europass, the European health insurance card, the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, consumer defence against unfair trade practices, different measures to protect the environment (including biodiversity preservation), and provisions aimed at facilitating and giving concrete encouragement to trans-European networks for transport and energy. As one can see, progress seems reasonably distributed between the economic, social and environmental fields.
The list of delays is just as long. For the Community Patent, given the new recent failure, the Summit speaks of a "period of reflection in order to study the way to make the dossier move forward", which is very wise. In the other areas, the Summit "calls for work to move forward rapidly" and specifically mentions: provisions to allow for better legislation, corporate governance, the framework directive on services (I have already noted the considerable polemic over this proposal), examination of the White Paper on services of general interest (whose role has been recognised by the Constitution), the proposal on chemical products (partly challenged, it is known), mobility of researchers, the strategy for sustainable development, the strategy for reducing emissions, and the need to put an end to the decline in biodiversity by 2010.
Concerning the Union's financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013, the only guideline adopted by the summit is that the work should fully take into account the different positions of Member States. This is a banality, which is justified by the magnitude of the divergence and the importance of what is at stake.
I shall briefly present in this column tomorrow the "conclusions" of the summit concerning external relations and foreign policy and defence questions.
(F.R.)