I gave ample coverage to France's attempt to rekindle the debate on the future of Europe in this column at the end of last week (our bulletin No 9353). Now that I have accomplished my duty to inform, I feel at ease to add a few personal comments. My impression is that the Lamassoure proposal, the Lequiller proposal and several suggestions made by Ms Ségolène Royal partially answer national concerns in France but do not answer those of most other member states.
Most member states want something else. France's main concern is to get back into the European swing of things whilst taking into account the negative response at the referendum on the constitutional treaty. The project should therefore be brought back to life without the aspects that caused the “no” vote. On the other hand, for several member states and for a majority of the European Parliament, the main thing is to safeguard the content of the constitutional treaty and to prevent any further overall negotiations that might bring into question what has already been achieved, prolonging institutional weaknesses that hinder the way the Union works. Can these two aims be reconciled? Is a combination of the two possible? I doubt that current French proposals represent real progress. Those who are refloating the debate in France seem to consider that an institutional treaty would be rapidly accepted because the aspects of the Giscard draft relating to the institutions had not been contested in the referendum in their country. But these aspects are challenged elsewhere. The United Kingdom no longer wants them, and its refusal will be even clearer after Tony Blair's departure. Poland rejects the new method of calculating the voting majority in Council. According to Ben Fayot, the Luxembourg parliamentarian who had been part of the Convention, some member states do not want an EU foreign minister, while others reject the permanent president of the European Council. Reducing the treaty to its institutional chapter would mean in fact reopening the whole debate, and saying this is the solution to the problem amounts, as Ben Fayot says, to “taking people for idiots”.
The press release from the Madrid meeting between the 18 countries that have ratified the project (plus Ireland and Portugal, and with the support of Sweden and Denmark) corresponds in substance to a rejection of the French projects: they say a purely institutional agreement is “insufficient”, and restate their call for an agreement that preserves substance and the balance of the constitutional treaty as a whole. The German EU presidency has also distanced itself from the Madrid meeting and its final communiqué, stressing that participation was limited to the role of observer (German ambassador in Spain). This is understandable: the presidency has the task of finalising a roadmap that gathers all member states together and refuses to make any distinctions between them. It will listen to them all on an equal footing. It finds the creation of the group of member states, “friends of the constitutional treaty”, embarassing. The Dutch foreign minister had been more explicit, saying that a meeting such as that in Madrid “brings nothing positive but stresses division” (which was certainly not the intention of those organising the meeting).
Inevitable reflection? Most governments will most probably tone down their official stances, out of respect for the German presidency. But the formula by Guy Verhofstadt is nonetheless gaining ground: that of overcoming the constitutional crisis not by weakening the existing treaty but by strengthening it. The aim is not, he says, to remove anything but to add what is lacking. And to those who ask what should be done if some member states refuse, Mr Verhofstadt replied it is necessary to “move forward with those who want to”. Should one deduce that the division of the EU into two parts could become inevitable”, if a group of member states maintains the objective of moving towards integration, when others are opposed? It is too soon to say, and it is only natural that most political decision-makers reject such a development. But I have noted two things pointing to this: In its edition on Monday, The Financial Times published the stance taken by Lord Blackwell (political advisor for the British prime minister during the period 1995-1997) in favour of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the institutional, legal and political framework of the EU and in favour of concluding an intergovernmental agreement with the EU (see our bulletin yesterday). Also, my comments yesterday raised the question of whether the United Kingdom might not do better to pull out of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) rather than call for it to be abolished.
These are two minor signs, of course, and purely coincidental. But those who wish to remain faithful to the European dream will perhaps be forced to reflect on this some day.
(F.R.)