Founding countries to the fore. Founding Member States are to play a specific role in the new phase of the reflection period about to open on constitutional revival (see yesterday's column). In June 2007, Germany will present the report that is to take stock of the debates on the constitutional treaty and “explore” possible future developments. It will then be up to France to carry the European Council through to a formula for overcoming the crisis. The Summit's conclusions are clear: this formula should be defined during the second half of 2008 under French EU Presidency. Authorities in Paris have not insisted on this aspect after approval of the text which is understandable given that France is precisely one of the countries that should clarify its position. This will not prove an easy task because of the negative outcome of the referendum - but one commentator did not hesitate to write that the “historic engine for European construction - the Franco-German pair - is urged to resume its role”.
It is also under German presidency that those responsible for European decision-making will approve, in Berlin on 25 March 2007, the new political declaration setting out the values and ambitions of Europe and confirming their common resolve to give concrete substance to the same. Italy has managed to have the above-mentioned Berlin declaration directly linked to the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, and it plans to directly cooperate in developing the text which, it believes, should have a significance similar to that of the Messina Declaration which, in June 1955, had been at the origin of the ECC, with the creation of the Spaak Committee. Belgium is one of the forerunners, with its prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, having vigorously relaunched the United States of Europe project. Luxembourg at the same time provides impetus and through the action of its prime minister (who is already anticipating institutional reform by its long-term presidency of the euro group). Next week I shall return to the specific role played by Jean-Claude Juncker in the current circumstances.
For now, the Netherlands remains on the margin of the role entrusted to the Six. Next year's renewal of the national parliament will tell us if and how it is taking part.
No division between former and new Member States but … Earlier remarks should not leave the impression that there is a widening gap between the founding Member Sates and the others, as such an impression would not correspond to reality. There are only individual cases. Countries like Spain, Ireland and Finland (among others) are often at the forefront of European construction, and among the last enlargement countries, Slovenia is now entering the eurozone, the heart of the Union, as Lithuania will soon be doing. Others will follow. Still others continue to keep to their traditional road. Thus, Sweden and Denmark still express reservation or reticence about developments of a political or monetary kind, although they are in the lead in certain essential aspects of the European edifice, such as the correct application of single market rules and implementation of the Lisbon Strategy.
It is nonetheless true that some new Member States seem to be following a different road. Poland has come into line with the British position considering that the constitutional treaty is over and done with, and the Czech Republic has, at a higher level, adopted a clearly Euro-sceptical approach. In many other Member States there are political currents promoting similar ideas - and this is quite natural. But, in Warsaw and Prague, it is not the opposition but the powers that be that oppose the guidelines forming the basis for the Summit's conclusions last week. Not only the president of the European Commission (generally speaking, without mentioning the country) but also the German chancellor have reacted, in a more energetic manner. The tone was different but the substance was the same: not only José Manuel Barroso but also Angela Merkel stressed the requirement that all Member States should be aware of what belonging to the Union means. It is something that cannot be summed up as the right to financial support or to the advantages of Common Agricultural Policy, as it also implies solidarity, common ambitions, a model of society, and a Community method for decision-making.
It would be best for those that do not share this conception to leave the Union. Nothing forces a country to remain. The concept of the ability to leave had been discussed within the Convention when drafting the constitutional treaty, and the result was clear: no country should feel trapped, imprisoned. And, although withdrawal is not desirable and appears legally complicated, the road pointed out for a long time now by Jacques Delors remains open - that of “differentiation”. Member States would be able to choose between taking part in an enlarged circle (which would cover what is essential: peace and stability, the basic principles, solidarity, respect of national identities) and a higher degree of integration within a more restricted circle. For the time being, no official authority wishes to speak of this openly, because one must prevent this prospect causing a break at a time when the aim is to get the engine going again and restore public confidence in the construction of Europe. But the time will come when the question will have to be raised. There may be surprises in store, as there is nothing to point to the fact that the two countries cited - Poland and the Czech Republic - will not then have found the direction that was theirs at the time of accession and that, according to some observers, still corresponds today to the mood of a majority of the population. The next political elections will provide an answer to this. In the meantime, the note of warning sounded by Angela Merkel and José Manuel Barroso remains valid.
“Political declaration”: rhetoric or ambition? The question of the political declaration of 25 March 2007 is directly linked to what precedes it. The conclusions of the Summit are clear and so brief on this point (paragraph 49) that the simplest thing is to just to quote it: “The European Council calls for 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”. All governments signed up to the text, but it is no secret that for some it represents no more than an opportunity to reassert with solemnity the essential principles (freedom, democracy, human rights, etc.), while others see this as a possibility to affirm the new ambitions of Europe, its political future and its enlarged tasks. It was this balance that allowed unanimity to be reached, without discussion between Heads of Government.
In the preparatory phase, the Italian delegation (interested for two reasons - to mark its renewed pro-European commitment and to stress that half a century has gone by since the Rome Treaty was signed) - had said an objective could be a new Messina Declaration, the text which, on 2 June 1955, had opened the process leading from the coal and steel community to the overall community called the EEC. Transformation of a similar scale should be a feature of the next Berlin Declaration. Two presidents then spoke out on this project before the Summit was opened. Parliament President Mr Borrel had evoked the Messina Declaration saying that, when we read it through again, it surprises us by its depth of political ambition. It proposed a common energy policy, and spoke of harmonisation of social policies and of common rules on the duration of working hours. He wondered whether one could today sign up to the proposals set out by the Six at that time. Mr Barroso, Commission President, had interpreted the Berlin Declaration as representing the transition from a period of reflection to a period of commitment, a declaration that “looks to the future”. He nonetheless expressed reserve about the name, saying that this declaration should not be a repeat of the Messina Declaration as, at that time, the declaration had been signed by the foreign ministers only, whereas, today, this is no longer possible. Europe will be neither technological nor diplomatic but it must be democratic. The declaration should therefore be signed also by the Parliament and the Commission.
This last aspect was taken into consideration by the Heads of Government, who stated explicitly that the Berlin Declaration will be signed by EU decision-makers, which also seems to involve the Parliament and the Commission (or their presidents). The substantive question remains open: should it be a declaration on principles, or a project with well-defined objectives, an action programme? The response will of course depend on what happens in March.
Machiavellian interpretation. My cautious but dynamic interpretation of the results of last week's summit is not unanimously shared. I have read others, including one particularly specific one which in practice states that heads of government have a - Machiavellian - attitude. Although slight differences separate those who expound this thesis, the substance is that the Summit is now convinced that the European Constitution is “dead”, while refusing to admit it. It is not that it has “deliberately chosen to lie” but the “convoluted jargon of the conclusions is in reality the fruit of a compromise”. The countries in favour of saving the Constitution and those who consider it as already dead would have agreed to set out in writing that they hope the ratification process may be carried to its conclusion in the aim of “counting”. If, in coming months, the number of ratifications increases, then the hope of saving the content of the project would gradually improve. If the figure remains blocked at 16, the death certificate would definitely be needed. Finland and possibly Portugal are counted on to make 18 “yes-votes”. Even Guy Verhofstadt, the main defender of what he continues to call the “Constitution”, has agreed to prolong this uncertain situation in order to avoid immediately burying the project - pending the German report in one year's time, followed by the French initiatives, which are to set out formulas likely to be accepted by all, thus avoiding a division within the Union. If at all possible.
(F.R.)