In short. In relation to the positions of the European People's Party (EPP), Guy Verhofstadt and Romano Prodi on the future of Europe and the relaunch of the Constitutional Treaty (see this column in the editions of yesterday and the day before), some governments are in total opposition. They a) think the current Constitutional Treaty project is dead and cannot be relaunched; b) support immediate further enlargement of the EU after the accessions of Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, particularly looking towards Turkey; c) or reject the idea of a twin-speed Union whatever it is called (avant-garde, hard core, pioneer group or anything else). The most radical stances against the current Constitutional Treaty project come from the Polish and British governments: my comments last month on Poland and the United Kingdom (see this column in edition 9151) remain valid, it seems to me. The trend towards a watering down of the current Constitutional Treaty project is gaining ground, even among those who support its relaunch. Additionally, there are indications that differences in attitude towards Turkey are beginning to affect the way accession talks already started are going, although the chapters under discussion are, for the moment, essentially technical in nature. In this context, there has just been added the document from France on one specific issue: possible improvements in the way the EU works based on the existing Treaties, without waiting for a new Treaty (see following page of this edition).
This, then, is a very short, and therefore by definition approximate, summary of the situation between Member States. We are awaiting Angela Merkel's to the Bundestag on 11 May on Germany's European policy and then the June Summit (European Council) to learn more.
In the meanwhile, the other contributions to the “period of reflection” are being developed, namely the growing participation of regional and local bodies and the dialogue with civil society.
Essential link. The bursting onto the scene of regional and local political forces is welcome. These forces represent the essential link between Community institutions and the people: those who complain constantly about how far Brussels is (politically, psychologically, geographically etc.) from public opinion would do well to remember this. The Austrian Presidency of the Council and the Austrian Parliament were inspired in organising the St. Pölten conference on 18 and 19 April, the very title of which was a stroke of genius: “Europe begins at home” (see report on this conference in edition 9175). President of the Committeel of the Regions Michel Delebarre stressed there that subsidiarity was not an abstract or philosophical concept, but had to be a reality: Europe is made up of the Union, States, regions and communities, each with its own role. Which means, Mr Delebarre emphasised, that subsidiarity has to be used as a dynamic element which will lead in certain areas to “more Europe” and in others to “less Europe”, by allowing national, regional or local authorities, as appropriate, to play their role and by making them participate in the definition of joint guidelines. That is why he said that the Committee of the Regions was going to concentrate its action on the pre-legislative stage, to have its say before certain decisions were taken and certain policies defined. Subsidiarity must be based on “governance at several levels” and this concept should be picked up in the “conclusions” of the June European Council on the perspectives for the Constitutional process.
Other speakers have talked of the “subsidiarity culture” and “subsidiarity control” (readers will probably recall that in the draft Constitutional Treaty, this supervision was explicitly given to national parliaments). Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel has shared, for the main part, these positions and tendencies, calling for reflection on how regional, national and European authorities could better play their respective roles to bring citizens closer to Europe and calm their fears of a centralised Europe, and he let it be understood that the conclusions of the June Summit (which will chair himself) will take account of the recommendations from the St Pölten conference, the main point being of course that results follow on.
Fully present. I have stressed the St Pölten conference because it represents what is happening, but we know how many bodies at European level are pursuing similar objectives: the Assembly of European Regions, the various geographical groups such as the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, etc. The regional and local aspect is fully present in the reflection process.
Tomorrow, I will consider the participation of civil society.
(F.R.)