Reflections that need to be continued. The second most important point on the agenda of this week's European Summit relates to the EU's attitude in the wake of the rejection of the Constitution in France and the Netherlands. Why the second? Because I continue to believe that the number one is the financial perspectives. The definition of what the EU intends to do right up to 2013, and with a corresponding financial commitment, has to take priority because it shows that Europe is still active, efficient and ambitious; and in the absence of this kind of response, anything else would seem either rhetorical or indecisive. What's more, the decision on the budget has to be immediate, but on the future of the Constitution, the reflection could (and should) continue.
How many suggestions, plans and projects on what should be done have I read in recent weeks! Quite a selection: the Constitution is dead and we should bury it sharpish, or quite the reverse; it needs rescuing because history teaches us that sometimes it takes years to ratify an international treaty. The ratifications must continue because everybody has a right to take position, or they should be stopped because there's no point asking people to vote on a draft that is dead in the water. We need to bring in various institutional reforms, drafted by the Convention and challenged by nobody, into the Treaty of Nice, or we need to renegotiate a new Constitution as soon as possible. We need to resign ourselves to the decline of the integrated Europe, or we need to hope for it to bounce back, because it's always after a knock like this that European ideals take on new strength. I won't have the presumption to add an extra plan to all of these that have been mooted and, in some cases, described in detail. I'd just like to make a few comments.
1. The legend of a "Plan B" drafted by the institutions of the Union is dead and buried; this plan doesn't exist and never has. We knew this, but many citizens preferred to trust the false prophets. The fact that the European Parliament decided last week against voting on a resolution ahead of this week's Summit proves this. But I'm not a critic of this prudent act on the part of the EP. The Parliamentary debate was animated and interesting (see the three pages summing it up in our bulletin 8964), and it confirmed that there is still no majority view on "what to do now?"; we need to keep thinking, comparing ideas. The views of the MEPs differ radically, even between those who supported the rejection of the Constitution: compare the "immediate initiatives" called for by Philippe de Villiers (on behalf of the right-wing "no") with Francis Wurtz's demands; it's quite enlightening.
2. Have the "Six" become five? Many observers have stressed the difference between the French and Dutch "noes". According to Philippe de Schoutheete, the Dutch "want less Europe (...). They would like it to be a free-trade zone with a bit of intergovernmental co-operation, a touch of solidarity, no common policies, no political union, a reduced budget and weak institutions". If he's right, then it's goodbye to the dreams of a relaunch initiative by the six founder countries! What this confirms is that on 4 June, the Netherlands were effectively being sounded out on their possible involvement in the coming together of the "Six" and that they declined; furthermore, Benelux is in hibernation.
3. Subsequent waves of enlargement slowed down? The impression that recent events will slow down future waves of the Union's enlargement is fairly broadly shared. Some are pleased about it, others rue it and ask for the cases of Bulgaria and Romania, and of Croatia, to be exceptions. In Germany, Angela Merkel, the opposition's candidate to the Chancellorship, has already said that she will call upon the EU to offer Turkey a special partnership, superior to association, instead of accession. The French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, "Europe is geographical just as much as it is political. We need to take this on board. After all, the Americans don't invite all the neighbours they have close relations with to become members of the United States. A bit of good sense!". It is true that in France, support for the Constitution and Turkish accession did not necessarily go hand in hand. It is worth pointing out that the leading opponent of Turkish accession with the father of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
4. Between pessimists and optimists. The line of demarcation between optimists and pessimists is hard to detect. In France, radical pessimists can be found on the left (Jacques Julliard: France "has just turned its back on the European construction that has been built up over half a century. It became a second-class nation over night") and in the centre (René Rémond: "in one ill-informed vote, the work of two generations of Europe builders has been destroyed"). However, the draft by Alain Lamassoure (see our bulletin yesterday) is forcefully optimistic. It even has a timetable! (F.R.)