Six consecutive comments on the reflection period on the future of Europe. Isn't this a bit much? I'm forced to ask myself this question. But I do in fact think that it is useful to examine the issue at the very moment this reflection is entering a crucial stage at an institutional level. Meetings have been arranged: the European Commission will approve its contribution on 10 May; Ms Angela Merkel will outline her European policy on 11 May to the German Parliament; Foreign Affairs Ministers will be meeting on 27-28 may in an abbey near Vienna; the European Council will take place on 15-16 June in Brussels. In my look round, I have also made some observations regarding the participation of the regional and local authorities and civil society. Here are some of these observations after having finished (provisionally) this exercise.
1. National differences. The positions of most Member States are determined by national differences rather than by differences of doctrine. Although France is calling for Europe to improve how it works by sticking to the existing Treaties, it is above all because of the difficulties it believes it would face in re-launching the Constitutional Treaty following the “no” vote in the referendum. The aims in the French initiative are obvious and in themselves, laudable. Make the institutions more efficient, more democratic and transparent; facilitate the decision-making process; get the national parliaments more involved in the decision-making process; improve the coordination of economic policies in the Euro zone. Who would be opposed to this? Germany, however, is afraid that this orientation would eventually lead to an abandonment of the Constitutional Treaty, together with its institutional innovations (revised distribution of seats at the European Parliament, “double majority” for votes at the Council) to which Berlin is logically very attached. It is also for valid reasons that several Member States do no want to give up on the Constitutional Treaty, after all, their parliaments and sometimes their electorates approved it. There have already been around fifteen ratifications. How can this be ignored?
2. The formula gaining ground. Faced with the differences on which way to go, the formula gaining ground is the one for making the Constitutional Treaty more stream-lined by safeguarding the first part (the part listing the aims and principles) and the second part (which sets the Charter for Fundamental Rights in stone) and by sacrificing the third part on which most of the opposition is focused in an indigestible mixture of far right, far left, sovereignist and those who choose to ignore the Community acquis and its aims. I get the impression, however, that this stream-lined formula, seductive at first glance, has not been subjective to any real reflection. Could it work in practice? The first part of the text often refers to the third part of the text for implementation of the principles that have been outlined. It is the third text which refers to the possibility of developing a common energy policy and which clarifies the meaning of “structured cooperation” between Member States that want to move forward on common defence matters, etc. I have to ask myself whether getting rid of the third part would involve a total re-negotiation, which would make any new general ratification of the Constitutional Treaty indispensable!
3. Commission wants things in concrete but without giving up constitutional aim. The European Commission appears to share France's position on the impossibility of immediately taking up the constitutional road but is determined to tackle this objective as soon as possible and to this end suggests that a number of meetings are now set up in 2007 and 2008. In the meantime, it is proposing an “Agenda for the Future of Europe” that goes beyond the institutional objectives indicated by France and which includes goals that are likely to convince citizens of the usefulness and effectiveness of Community action. The Commission document will be ready next week but its orientations were comprehensively discussed in our April bulletin (9182), together with the vision of Commissioner Louis Michel.
4. Two “no” votes on the orientation of current project. Together with these differences of orientation on which way ahead, two Member States reject the current Constitutional Treaty in itself: Great Britain and the government in office in Poland. A distinction is visible: in Poland, the political forces in favour of European construction and strengthening this process are significant and the government in office won't be there for ever. In London, the attempt by Tony Blair to locate his country at the centre of the European adventure has failed and the two main political parties appear to support a simple free-trade zone, devoid of political ambition and rejecting economic integration. I will be returning to these two cases in point.
(F.R)