An issue for the German presidency? How can the centre stage taken up by the French election campaign (partly unexpected) help change prospects for an EU revival? Because the prevailing outline of this relaunch (which still represents the generally accepted outline) does not offer any hope of a positive development. In its search for a “road map” that is acceptable to all, the German presidency is confronting three official positions: a) countries that are “friends of the constitutional treaty”, that have ratified it, are in a clear majority and which consider that it is an obligation to take it duly into account and safeguard its contents; b) some member states which consider the treaty as dead; they are very pleased with this and believe that it's time to move on to something else; c) member states whose electorates rejected it through referendums, which rule out the possibility of a new vote and envisage its renegotiation in an abridged form. In my opinion these three positions are irreconcilable. None of the member states are prepared to make significant concessions to the positions of their neighbours either. I have previously written that in these conditions, the task of the German presidency is practically impossible.
Two categories of member states. France's more or less conscious attempt consists of completely changing the starting point (see this column yesterday and the day before yesterday). The rift between member states would no longer be determined by the distinction of which of them has ratified the treaty or not. According to this thesis, this argument belongs to the past and no longer provides a basis on which the future can be built. By looking forward, there will only be two kinds of member state:
those that support the continuation and consolidation of a Community Europe, in keeping with the spirit and objectives of the founding fathers, determined to work for a Europe that is not overwhelmed by globalisation and which preserves and develops its identity;
member states that do not accept this vision of Europe and which don't want to participate in its relaunch.
The contents and modalities involved in consolidating Europe are obviously something to discuss and negotiate between member states prepared to participate in the enterprise, but Europe's nature and its essential objectives will be clear from the outset. And those that want to, should come along.
The road ahead. The way ahead has been broadly anticipated in a number of initiatives. There would firstly be an “institutional treaty” introducing innovations from the draft constitutional treaty to be considered, with a certain optimism, as is generally agreed, and which would enter into force in 2009, before the next European elections, in an effort to get the EU “up and running” again. Member states would therefore be able to negotiate revision of the financial perspectives (including agricultural spending) and the essential contents of common policies. This would involve the pro-active participation of the newly elected Parliament and the new Constitution, which would have been drawn up by taking into account the election results and by confirming and strengthening the Community institutional method.
Nothing can be taken as read but nothing can be forgotten. Absolutely nothing of what we had before can be regarded as being definitive. It is possible that in the follow-up to the French election campaign, the European theme is once again lost in the mist and the German presidency in the end is forced to look for an unlikely compromise between the different official positions. It is possible, however, that developments are less gloomy than those forcefully and clearly expressed by Nicolas Sarkozy, which took me by surprise and which I did not attempt to conceal in this column. François Bayrou's political history, the reference he retained (Jacques Delors, is that all?) and the advisers he's surrounded himself with (Jean-Louis Bourlanges, in particular) would suggest he'll soon be speaking out on Europe. It is also possible that Ségolène Royal reaches the conclusion that the European theme is not particularly on the periphery of the French electorate's concerns.
In any case, if it should turn out that Europe fades somewhat from the candidates' concerns, this column will strive to relentlessly remind them, when the time comes, of what they said (and what they'll still be saying), including the orientations and intentions they proclaimed and the commitments they made.
(F.R.)