I have noticed it already: at last something is moving in the reflection over the future of Europe. The first commotion came from the Summit of the European People's Party (EPP) in Rome, after which no longer can leaders of major EU political forces (including, in this case, some heads of government) be condemned for their silence . Through the “Rome Manifesto”, the EPP has taken a position on two essential points of the current reflection: the future of the Constitutional Treaty and the borders of Europe. For the wider picture of the outcome of the EPP Congress, read the report by our special correspondent in Rome (Bulletin 9165). For the two points mentioned, the EPP party has confirmed, and even gone beyond, the positions already taken by the EPP group of the European Parliament, that is:
A. The future of the Constitutional Treaty. The EPP has reaffirmed its support for the current project, by rejecting the positions of the British, Polish and some other governments which would have the project dead. The EPP considers that the ratification process should be continued, because this project largely responds to criticisms from citizens about how the EU is currently working and contains “considerable advances”. The aim is to achieve “its ratification after the pause for reflection”. In the first half of 2007 (under German Presidency), then, the European Council should give the process fresh impetus. EPP leaders “support the Constitutional Treaty in its entirety and strongly reject the idea that it can be adopted in an 'à la carte' fashion”. The Rome Manifesto speaks of institutional improvements to be retained: a new, more transparent, voting system, a strengthening of the role of the European Parliament, the creation of the post of European Foreign Minister, European elections leading to the election of the President of the Commission, a clearer separation of the responsibilities of the European Parliament and national parliaments, with the latter being given power to monitor how well the subsidiary principle is being adhered to. These measures are said to be essential for “a more transparent Europe that is able to take action”.
B. The borders of Europe, future enlargements, the alternative option. The EPP has established a direct link between the institutional reforms mentioned above and later enlargements (following the accession of Romania and Bulgaria), by stating that the EU has to be reformed “before the next enlargement”. The call for caution is explicit: “The debate on the borders of Europe is at the very heart of our common identity … The EU has to be much more cautious about future enlargements”. And the EPP reaffirms and reinforces the two points which featured in the resolution of 16 March in the European Parliament, which has already been discussed in this column (see bulletins 9156 and 9157): taking account of the EU's absorption capacity and offering alternative solutions to neighbouring European countries “which cannot or don not want to become full members”.
Accession could thus be replaced by “very close partnership” which could develop into a “common economic area”, including “close political consultation, especially in the fields of justice and internal affairs, as well as foreign policy and security” (with the fight against terrorism, at the forefront). Alongside these partnerships, the EU would develop its “neighbourhood policy” with the countries from the East and the Mediterranean, seeking to create and develop “a joint area of peace, stability, respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law and prosperity”. Given the differences between the countries concerned, the neighbourhood policy would have “different requirements for each one”, without excluding the prospect of accession for those countries which are geographically European. The Austrian Chancellor and President of the European Council Wolfgang Schüssel stressed that in this plan, EU commitments towards the Balkan countries with regard to accession would not be put in question and had to be respected, something that could reassure the countries in question and calm the fears of European Commissioner Olli Rehn (see bulletin 9166).
During the Rome Congress, some partially dissenting voices were heard, but overall the major European political party reached its decisions on the two essential points, and these decisions were not the same as those of the other political forces. This is normal, because the aim of the “reflection period” is to look at one another's positions and discuss them. Over the coming days, I will continue my look at the various different tendencies that are emerging. (F.R.)