Double splash of sunshine. It's always nice to start the year with a few optimistic comments. I don't mean the traditional New Year messages and artificial, exaggerated predictions but rather the fact that 2006 ended with a few positive outcomes and things are moving in the right direction for 2007 as well. Nothing sensational, but the mood brighter than at the start of previous years both in terms of a 'Europe of outcomes' and in terms of rosy future prospects. This 'double splash of sunshine' is starting to be felt in commentaries and even, to some extent, in public opinion. Dark clouds persist, of course, and doom-mongers who see Europe as totally decadent and unable of playing a role in the world have not gone away. But something is changing and the defenders of an integrated Europe are finding their voice again and getting their confidence back, even among young people, who are now backing up the few oldies who refused to give up.
In 2005 and the first part of last year, the EU was split down the middle between two doctrines, one wanting a 'Europe of outcomes', rejecting the constitutional debate, and the other arguing that only a fundamental treaty could get the machine going again and decide on the direction. This was an artificial split because both roads are necessary. Jean-Claude Juncker, who speaks simply and clearly because he sees so clearly, told French parliamentarians last November that people were talking about a Europe of outcomes, a results-based Europe, and he welcomed this approach as long as it was not presented as an alternative to the fundamental treaty so desperately needed by the EU. I would add that elements justifying moderate optimism and a restoration of confidence at the start of 2007 are to be found in both directions.
A Europe of outcomes. The rising power of the European Parliament, the effectiveness and good faith of the Finnish Presidency of the Council in seeking solutions to enable the EU to move forwards, and the European Commission's willingness to provide a few indispensable compromises, led to a few remarkable breakthroughs in the final weeks of 2006, on which other results can be based. I am not referring to progress in theory or doctrine but legislation which will have a direct influence on the life of citizens, protection of the environment and industry, namely the Services Directive, the REACH chemicals legislation, the Financial Regulation which will allow the European transport network to be brought into being, the revised Television without Frontiers Directive, the new European Globalisation Fund and more. I know that this legislation does not please everybody and some of it has even received its share of scathing criticism, but it would have received even more criticism if it had been developed more in line with the ideas of people rejecting it.
This is the law of democracy. It is impossible to keep all political leanings and all 25 countries happy at the same time, but criteria exist for determining whether decisions are positive overall. At the start of December, I undertook this perilous overall assessment vis-à-vis the Services Directive (see newsletter 9318) and I will repeat the exercise tomorrow vis-à-vis REACH. For the moment, I will simply say that in my view, the Europe of outcomes is making progress and this also applies to various areas where there is not actually legislation to be approved but rather policies to be defined, like the new trade policy for example. Even the 'Lisbon Strategy' is making progress. After the initial error of setting untenable deadlines, reforms are now mushrooming and the results are getting ever more visible in some Member States.
The draft constitution. The reflection period on the constitutional re-launch, so rightly criticised when it did not give rise to anything, is now starting to bear fruit. There has been an avalanche of alternative drafts, some of which will not last very long but have a few formulas which may prove useful. Above, all, a few big ideas are now largely accepted - dropping the word 'Constitution' because it generates misunderstandings; the demand for a fundamental treaty (because the lack of one would be hugely expensive); abandoning the idea of a new Convention, because this would inevitably mean starting from scratch again but the current draft provides so many useful innovations. Nothing has yet been decided and the people who argue that the Constitution is dead have not given up arms, but the German Presidency is determined to move forwards. And will do so. (F.R.)