Predicting the future? Once more, the European Council's conclusions are too long and too descriptive, and only time will tell us what real significance they hold. It is difficult to grasp this significance unless one casts one's mind back to the situation in Europe just a few months ago when: - there was no European policy foreseen for energy; the Lisbon Strategy was bogged down in scepticism and discouragement; the new financial perspectives, the essential instrument for any future European activity, were still in a foggy haze; and the draft directive on “services” was troubling public opinion in a largely anti-European way and making the divide between the new and old Member States even wider.
In those few months, these negative and sometimes despairing situations have been partially addressed, and new projects and new guidelines have now received political endorsement at the highest level. If one forgets the past situation, one may quite legitimately assert that the European Council has done nothing new, as it has simply endorsed what had been proposed or suggested by the European Commission, discussed by the European Parliament and prepared by the various Council formations (the Summit's “conclusions” had been written in advance and the Heads of Government simply made a few small changes to them). If one admits, however, that decisions at this level commit the European institutions and governments, and that they make the EU more visible for the public, then this Summit could be seen as a turning point, and the comment by Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, who presided the Summit, could take on a prophetic meaning: “In ten years' time, we shall realise what a historic day it was”.
We are not there yet. For now, citizens will find these dozens of pages unreadable, and it is understandable that the press and television have only highlighted a few picturesque details of the debates, of a linguistic nature, for example. Our readers, however, will see the situation in a different light. They were able to read in our last bulletin the exclusive accounts on aspects that do not appear in the texts, such as the stances taken on “economic nationalism” and the ministerial discussions on future enlargements. They have now received the text of the “conclusions” and other positions. I shall be returning in detail to some of the aspects of what happened last Thursday and Friday, but for now I shall keep to just a few comments.
1. Aspects neglected. In their discussions and their conclusions, the Heads of Government left aside two essential challenges to be raised by the EU: - the future of the Constitution and the frontiers of Europe. Divergence had been confirmed during the preparatory debates between foreign ministers. These two issues will be the focus of the June Summit.
2: Quantified objectives. Despite the perplexities expressed by some Member States, the Summit - upon Commission and Parliament insistence - included in its “conclusions” a number of quantified objectives and deadlines in order to give a concrete and binding nature to the projects and programmes concerned. How, however, can one forget that quantified targets and dates are, in general, never met and that they sometimes appear unrealistic?
3. Energy and its message. The long-awaited political message when it comes to energy has now arrived. The Summit even went further than the Commission in its definitions, speaking of a common energy policy (and not just a “strategy”), despite the lack of a legal base. The Commission and the Parliament (except the Greens, because of the nuclear aspect) welcomed the message. Nonetheless, there is still uncertainty and ambiguity, and the Heads of Government did not follow the Commission on the institutional aspect of the policy envisaged.
4. A success to be confirmed. The paragraph on the “services” directive is a success for the European Parliament and an act of wisdom on the part of the Heads of Government. It is to be hoped that the remaining difficulties (which are not trifling) will be speedily overcome, as this would be the proof that the 25-member Europe can reach compromises even when national interests differ considerably.
5. Economic protectionism. Although this subject remained on the sidelines of official debates and the “conclusions”, it was well and truly present in some of the statements taken up in our bulletin No.9159. I shall be seeking to take stock of the situation in this column in the near future.
(F.R.)