More yes-votes in Luxembourg than no-votes in France. The other present Jean-Claude Juncker gave Europe at the end of his presidency at the European Council (and Ecofin Council) was the approval the Luxembourg people gave to the European constitution. All the pundits considered this result as the fruit of the personal commitment of the Prime Minister and several commentators highlighted the difficulty of the enterprise after the French no-vote and the powerful psychological influence of these events in France on the inhabitants of the Great Duchy. Mr Juncker did not hide this, “My country is sensitive about what is said about Europe in neighbouring countries; having seen the no-vote in France, many people from Luxembourg where asking themselves a lot of questions”. A certain number of commentaries highlighted the closeness of the approval. Juncker had anticipated this journalistic mystification, as on Sunday evening he ironically declared to journalists that, “the result (Luxembourg) will allow it to use a description that would bring to mind what was said about the French result. There were many, very many of you who said and wrote that this involved a tidal wave, when in fact the French no-vote was smaller than the Luxembourg yes-vote”. He called for a comparison of the headlines on the French and Luxembourg results. This comparison can still be made for one's personal edification.
Influence on European reflection. Juncker also made a brief allusion to those who are always pointing out the equality of all Union Member States: “the Luxembourg vote is as important as the vote expressed by the French and Dutch” (which rather ignores the principle of double majority of States and populations, introduced as a rule in the draft Constitution). The essential point, taken up by all the institutions (EUROPE 8998) is that the Luxembourg vote allow us to keep the constitutional treaty on the EU agenda” and that this will influence the “explanation phase, the debate and controversy that will occur in other Member States”. According to the president of the Commission, Mr Barroso, it proves that, “a majority of Member States consider that the constitutional treaty meets their expectations by paving the way to a more democratic, more transparent and stronger Europe on the world stage”, which represents a sharp retort to the supporters of the “no” vote in France, according to which the no-vote there would develop into a more generalised rejection of the European project. I don't believe in the resurrection of the Constitution as it stands and the silence of Member States that have suspended ratification procedures is significant; the no-vote of most of France weakened their own country above all. How to save the value of the constitutional treaty will be in the definition of the reflection period just opening up and which has already produced some initiatives. In the meantime, it would be better to stick to the subtle formula of Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Monica Frassoni on “the need to continue with the process of obtaining a Constitution for Europe”. But Juncker is right to believe that the Luxembourg result will influence the reflection being developed.
Junker's role. It is more difficult to assess the lessons to draw from the Luxembourg presidency on how the Council works. Is the personal and permanent commitment of Jean-Claude Juncker (and some of his immediate collaborators) for or against the role of a long term president of the European Council, free from any national responsibilities? There are factors that go in both directions (see yesterday's section). Mr Juncker will still be president of the Eurogroup for two years and he will remain Luxembourg minister of finance. The British presidency of the Ecofin Council will not be based in this Eurogroup because the United Kingdom is not part of the euro. Will the situation be so fragile in six months time when the president of the Ecofin Council is part of the Eurogroup presided by Juncker? So many questions' And how difficult it is to elaborate general rules while leaving aside the people involved! I think that it is completely illogical for Europe to not use the capacities, and European experience and knowledge of Jean-Claude Juncker when it's available. But how? In what conditions? I admit I don't have the answer. For the moment, he is focusing on the economic governance of the euro zone and improving the balance between the tasks of the Eurogroup and those of the president of the European Central Bank. If he gets tangible results, he will have done Europe proud and proved the usefulness of long term presidencies.
(F.R.)