A constitutional treaty is not imposed. Even those who find the European Council's conclusions disappointing on the follow-up of the constitutional process, they ought to recognise that: it was practically impossible to go any further. Quite simply because Member States do not agree on the way forward or what objective to pursue. The situation at the European Parliament is radically different: it can obtain positions reached by a majority. Will the summit be able to do as much? On the subject of a new treaty, no, it won't. You cannot force a country or its people, when they have signed up to existing treaties, to accept their transformation. They have to agree. There are only two issues: unanimity or “differentiation” between those who want to go forward and the other countries. Divergences at the EP and within the governments are the same; some believe it is dead; others believe that they now need to re-negotiate immediately, while certain quarters call for it to be ratified as it is. While Parliament is capable of getting a majority on one of these options, it is a different matter at the European Council. This is why I believe that in the current situation, the European Council has done its utmost by retaining certain principles and extending the reflection period on the “way out of the crisis” by leaving several doors open.
The “double approach” principle is accepted. Among the principles retained, and the most visible, is that of the “double approach”: pushing forward a “Europe of results”, to prove that European construction is moving ahead by best using the instruments it already has, to the advantage of its citizens and by taking into account their concerns; at the same time, considering the draft Constitution as a living entity and by pursuing reflection on how it can be re-launched. This is, more or less, the approach suggested by the European Commission but with the taking into account of certain criticism and certain fears. A phrase chosen by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt to the European Parliament provided the tone, “the Europe of projects has already been cited, when in fact it is the reverse we need: a project for Europe”. At the same time, EPP parliamentarians criticised the Commission for not having sufficiently defended the draft Constitution and denounced the danger of putting too much emphasis on results to be achieved with existing instruments, which could lead to renouncing (or almost) the new indispensable instruments that are only available in the new Constitution.
The Commission president was not indifferent to these remarks and he assured the EP that “The Europe of projects is not an alternative to a project for Europe” and that “the Commission supports principles, values, the substance of the Constitutional treaty” by highlighting the progress implied in the treaty: clarification of competencies; extension of EP/Council co-decision and qualified majority, Charter of Fundamental Rights, creation of a minister for foreign affairs, possibilities for common energy policy, increased efficiency in public care and food safety. Mr Barroso provided reassurances that the Commission would never give up on this aim. With this subsequent clarification, and with complements paid to different Member States, the doctrine of the “double approach” was retained (these terms are contained in all the Presidency's conclusions) and represents the first response to the current crisis.
Temporal but ambitious perspective. We should be aware that the principle of the double approach does not provide an answer to the real question: a formula for “getting out of the crisis”. Heads of government acknowledged that a consensus formula does not exist. In this respect, the progress achieved at the summit is initially to be found in the definition of a temporal perspective. It is not a genuine timetable; the summit was wise enough to avoid setting deadlines because of the risks of frustration that this would imply. But the stages appear clear enough.
The next half of the year should help us better understand the direction of Member States that have still not clarified their attitude towards ratification of the Constitutional treaty (there are some that have already ratified and some who have said that they do not intend to) and therefore best assess the number of ratifications attained or probable. Can the 20 of them that would authorise the European Council to formally reach decisions be attained? Several Member States want this in the hope that this would help kick-start the institutional machine, others, on the contrary, would like the current draft to vanish. This point needs clarifying.
The operational phase will begin in the first half of 2007 with the German presidency and elections in the countries that voted “no”: a new French president and a new Parliament in the Netherlands should help these two Member States to clarify their intentions and, at the German presidency, to present the fundamental document in June, highlighting a “possible solution and a work timetable” for obtaining an agreement on the formula for “getting out of the crisis” for the end of 2008. The text is clear (paragraph 48): “it being understood that the necessary steps to that effect will have been taken during the second semester of 2008 at the latest” (therefore, under the French presidency). According to the terms of Chancellor Schüssel, the 2009 deadline for the simultaneous entry into force of the new European Parliament, new European Commission and Constitutional treaty “is in everybody's mind” and it “remains possible”.
A new political commitment. This march toward the formula “for getting out of the crisis” will be accompanied by a political initiative explicitly explained in the “conclusions” that perhaps goes beyond what there had been the day before. Paragraph 49 of “the conclusions” calls on “EU leaders” to support “the adoption, on 25 March 2007 in Berlin, of a political declaration by EU leaders, setting out Europe's values and ambitions and confirming their shared commitment to deliver them, commemorating 50 years of the Treaties of Rome”. This was originally a Commission idea, logically re-launched by Italy and permanently retained by the summit. Just commemorative rhetoric or a fundamental political commitment? Opinions diverge. I intend to come back to this commitment for which certain aspects deserve some comment, particularly the formula, “leaders of the Union”, which in practice puts both the European Parliament and Commission together in a solemn commitment for which the principle has already been accepted.
A timetable is not a solution. The timetable in question is optimistic but respect for it remains subordinated to a basic compromise on the future of the Constitutional treaty. All of the three major options have their supporters: maintaining the current text, renegotiation of all or certain aspects of it, abandonment of the whole draft. Not withstanding the two Member States that have already announced the death of the current draft (United Kingdom and Poland, with support from others), countries that want it to be maintained are divided into two groups: those who are now open to a partial re-negotiation of the text in the direction of its being scaled down and simplified (partisans of this group are the two rapporteurs from the European Parliament and some Heads of government who last week clearly expressed their openness to this idea) and those who, on the contrary, believe that threatening one or other aspects of the compromise at the Convention (and approved by all the governments) will break the painstakingly achieved balance and lead to a piecemeal but total re-negotiation of everything: this would be a way of re-opening Pandora's Box. At first glance, no conciliation appears possible on these two syntheses.
Austrian presidency flags up small window of hope. Before handing over to the Finnish presidency, Chancellor Schüssel, who has been in charge of this difficult dossier, handling it with tact, skill and firmness, used a term, which, according to some observers, could lead to a compromise: by avoiding any call for a possible re-negotiation of the text, he mentioned “bringing new elements” to it, which would refer not to the amendments but to complementary additions or comments (there is already a question, for example, in some of the positions, of a “social declaration”) and other arrangements separating up the different parts of the current draft. Some legal experts and commentators affirm that it is impossible to separate the third pillar from the rest because the first contains a large number of references to the third pillar, in which the contents are explicitly outlined. Was the Chancellor able to obtain other indications? He has in any case observed two fundamental consensuses: a) the substance of the Constitution should be maintained; b) in the long term the EU will not be able to work with the Treaty of Nice. Were these two consensuses really unanimous?
Everything that has gone before does not in any way guarantee that the extension of the pause for reflection will lead to a compromise but it does provide this new phase opening up it with a structure, by clearly combining the “project for Europe” mentioned by Guy Verhofstadt with the “Europe of results” called for by Jacques Chirac and José Manuel Barroso and definitively accepted by everyone
Some points to flesh out. Despite the length, for which I apologise, of this commentary, the importance of the summit's results on the chapter on the “constitutional re-launch” has not been totally evaluated. I would still like to flesh out the point of the “political declaration” on 25 March next in Berlin, the name of the text, which requires agreement (Constitution or Constitutional Treaty?), the distinction between new and old Member States (for the most part these are fictive but some aspects are real enough). This will be for tomorrow.
After which, another set of conclusions from the summit will require reflection: that on future enlargement and the Union's “capacity of absorption” (this terminology has now been included in the official French version and we have to get used to it).