The president of the Council, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and the vice president of the Commission, Günter Verheugen, have developed a similar concept for presentation of the Spring summit results to the European Parliament: these results prove that the EU of 27 is capable of taking action and that it is not inefficient or unmanageable. This assertion is accurate for certain aspects of Community activity but it is not the case for the definition of Europe's main objectives or for its goals and essential character. This column has underscored what is positive in the European Council's conclusions in relation to energy policy, the fight against climate change, and progress with the Lisbon strategy. I have often been the only one in the international journalistic panorama to highlight the EU's important accomplishments, even during the gloomy crisis of confidence period. The EU machine was working and is working, despite everything, to the benefit of Europeans and it is a positive thing that the institutions illustrate this to the public at large. However, it has to be pointed out with the same frankness, that the gap between national positions on the future of Europe continues to get wider. I commented on this issue just a week ago (EUROPE 9385) but did not, by a long way, highlight all the elements available on the question. I will therefore return to the British position and that of the European Parliament.
Four points by Mr Cameron. During his recent visit to Brussels, David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative party, confirmed his options, which can be summarised in four points: a) let's forget about the Constitutional Treaty because it is dead, even in a watered down format; b) certain competencies transferred to the EU should be returned to member states; c) Europe has to become more flexible and more focused on the outside world; d) EU enlargement should be continued, and Turkey should particularly be welcomed on board. The Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek gushed forth in the same vein, “freedom is the victim of unification and European regulation…Let's forget about European unification, it's a dead-end, let's put down our Europe hymn sheets and get on with the economy”.
It's true that Eurosceptics have always been around, even at the European Parliament, and they all obviously have the right to their own opinions. The problem is that Topolanek is the prime minister of a member state and Mr Cameron might be, in a little while, if the polls and pundits are borne out. The Polish government's position is pretty much the same and the same tendencies exist in Bulgaria. According to Cameron, Europe should concentrate on the progress made by globalisation, global warming and the fight against poverty in the world. These are noble and essential goals that are largely shared (the European Council proved this) but they are only partially relevant to the issue of European integration: an intergovernmental Europe would, at first glance, be enough.
Majority at European Parliament remains firm. In this connection, the European Parliament's parliamentary affairs committee is preparing, under the impetus of its president, Jo Leinen, a new resolution (to be submitted to the plenary session before the June European Council) that will point out that the Constitutional Treaty continues to benefit from the support of a very large majority of member states and that its ratification is indispensable to the cohesion of an enlarged Europe. The substance of it needs preserving. To obtain unanimous support for an agreement, it will be necessary to: a) simplify its presentation; b) enrich it in order to respond to European citizens' concerns by including provisions on: the environment; energy; the European economic and social model, as well as limits to European intervention, which must respect national and regional competencies. New provisions will be attached to the Constitutional Treaty in a way that still needs to be worked out but which includes a political commitment from the institutions and member states to their citizens.
We can see that this is the doctrine of a “Treaty+”, which will be ratified by member states, while taking into account their own constitutional provisions. This “Treaty+” should, according to the EP, enter into force before the June 2009 European elections, which requires a decision on it before the end of 2007.
How can a new Treaty be negotiated and approved by all in a few months? This will be the bet Ms Merkel will be making when she presents her “road map”. In her more confidential moments with other heads of governments, she effectively spoke of signing a simplified treaty next December. How can this be achieved? How can the “two circles” (whatever term is used) scenario be avoided, where one wants to move towards integration and the other does not? (F.R.)