Is it possible for the 27 countries of the EU to negotiate a new treaty in a few months and sign it at the end of the year? I've expressed some scepticism about this on several occasions, given the obvious differences over its contents. Certain member states want to safeguard the existing draft Constitutional Treaty, some affirm that it is dead and should be forgotten and others want to add additional factors to it. How can the essential unanimity be reached in these conditions? The indication in the calendar, however, contained in the “Berlin Declaration” (2009 for establishing, “reformed common bases” of European construction) necessarily implies this deadline.
Despite the uncertainties in some of the capitals about the calendar, opinions on the approach to follow have got closer together. The starting point has been settled: renunciation of the term Constitution and reduction of the affirmations of principle on the meaning of a united Europe and its heritage and values. The “Berlin Declaration” shows the way: we get rid of the terms that are causing the problems and we reach consensus (or almost). The first articles in the current draft treaty are no longer considered as intangible, despite the care the Convention gave to them. The other indispensable conditions are harder to reach because they focus on the actual contents and a strong political will from all would be needed. There are, however, a number of elements that warrant cautious optimism.
1. New ratification for all. The first factor depends on the agreement of principle, according to which all member states that have already ratified the current treaty (and which are largely in the majority) proceed to another ratification. Until yesterday, some quarters were ruling out this hypothesis. They have become much more conciliatory, even if they avoid recognising this explicitly. It is a kind of tacit approval.
2. Accepted starting point. The second factor is represented by the authority and the persuasive force of the German presidency of the Council. The way in which Angela Merkel obtained a softening in the position of the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, through meeting him directly, is instructive. He agreed that the draft Constitutional Treaty should be considered as the basis for the discussions on a revised text but had previously argued that they needed to start from scratch (EUROPE 9389). Kaczynski indicated that this was a gesture on his behalf to the German presidency. He is sticking to his demand for the method for calculating majorities at the Council to be revised (he rejects the double majority formula of states and population) and has expressed reservations about the calendar, but has accepted the starting point. It is likely that he has obtained further assurances from Merkel about European solidarity on energy (which had already been affirmed in the European Spring summit conclusions). That's a result, and developments in the Polish position have led to similar shifts in the Czech Republic and elsewhere. No state is calling for things to be started again from scratch.
3. United Kingdom not totally negative. The third factor involves the British position. No-one is expecting a conversion by the United Kingdom and for it to support European integration, but it is reasonable to take the following factors into account: a) it won't be David Cameron who will be negotiating for his country in the second half of the year because the Labour government is still in power until 2008 or 2009. Mr Cameron's radically Euro-sceptic position, which I described in this column (EUROPE 9390), is, for the time being, mainly for domestic consumption; b) the next likely prime minister, Gordon Brown, in a recent interview in Brussels, invited the president of the European Commission not to believe everything he reads in the press about his Euro-scepticism. He is said to be prepared to collaborate; c) the United Kingdom a priori supports certain targets on climate, third world aid and opening up to the outside world and agrees that some European decisions are taken with majority voting.
Without getting rid of Euro-scepticism on the other side of the Channel, these factors can facilitate compromises.
It should also not be forgotten that a current in favour of European integration exists in the United Kingdom and that it has acted effectively in the past on a number of occasions. Andrew Duff and Richard Corbett are particularly active leaders of this current at the European Parliament.
4. Clarification of parliamentary tactics. The fourth factor is the tactical evolution at the European Parliament. In principle, the new resolution the constitutional affairs committee is currently preparing, remains firmly anchored to the principle of the “Treaty+”, in other words, the idea of adding a number of provisions to the current Constitutional Treaty. Elmar Brok (co-rapporteur with Enrique Baron Crespo) has given indications that suggest: a) the Parliament now admits the need for a new treaty to be negotiated quickly, logically implying ratification by all member states; b) the June European Council should immediately arrange the inter-governmental conference (IGC) in charge of the negotiations.
Mr Brok explained that this IGC should have a mandate outlining what limits there are to its remit. In particular, it will not be able to amend the first part of the current draft (which introduces double majority for votes at the Council) or the second part of it (Charter of Fundamental Rights). Negotiations focus on the third part (to be streamlined and simplified) and supplementary parts expected to cover areas such as climate change, energy security, social dimension, immigration and economic governance of the eurozone (EUROPE 9391). Brok explained that if certain states were insistent about negotiating all together, the Parliament would demand a new Convention. Any negotiations would therefore have to start up again and, in the absence of an agreement, the separation of the EU into two circles would become inevitable, as member states that want to go forward will do so.
5. Rethinking in France. The fifth factor involves developments in French rethinking. Haven't most capitals said, since the beginning, that it was up to France to shift and seek out a solution when it was the cause of the blockage? Countries that ratified the Constitutional Treaty have taken the first fundamental step by recognising, more or less explicitly, that France and the Netherlands cannot present the same text to their people that the latter threw out. A new draft is necessary and it is the countries that have already ratified the current draft which should repeat the ratification exercise. This is, as I have already underlined, a concession that was never obtained in advance and which is still partly being masked over.
France should therefore say what approach should be followed. The date for the national elections is delaying any official position being taken; only the new president, who will be known in the second week of May, will be able to say anything on the matter. The three candidates that have a chance of being elected have indicated where they stand, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Bayrou in a detailed manner, Ségolène Royal remaining more vague.
Sarkozy and Baryou's European projects are so ambitious that they have anticipated that the 27 member states will not all agree and that a two-speed Europe should be envisaged. Royal and Bayrou also announced that the Treaty to be negotiated would be subject to a new national referendum. Announcing the “two circles” and the choice of a referendum created some perplexities. Demands and requirements in the election campaign are likely to have influenced some attitudes, which could be clarified when the new president is elected. This is why, instead of just listening to election speeches, I prefer to take into account the debate organised by the European Commission's Representation in France on 20 March in Paris, that brought together Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Elisabeth Guigou, Philippe Herzog and Pierre Lequiller. The latter was in practice the official mouthpiece for Mr Sarkozy, and Ms Guigou was likewise for Ségolène Royal.
This resulted in the two stage process being agreed to by all. Firstly, a simplified treaty (“refined”, according to Guigou) introducing institutional reforms and indicating the new objectives, would be negotiated at the IGC (which, according to Bayrou would also include national and European parliamentarians, as well as government representatives). The need for speed was acknowledged: the new Treaty should be signed at the end of this year in view of ratification in 2008 or at the beginning of 2009. How should it be ratified? The four speakers said parliament should ratify it (Elisabeth Guigou introduced some flexibility to Ségolène Royal's choice of referendum, explaining that a definitive response on the matter would be premature).
Reform of the institutions would be completed by provisions of principle in the areas of the environment, social arena, economy and energy. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, however, said that the current draft should remain as it is and “to improve not amend” it, required the addition of protocols to which member states would participate, if they wished, through an opt-out system.
The second stage would focus on common policies. Several formulas were put forward, all included a “strengthened cooperation” mechanism allowing for an avant-garde to be born, open to all, rather than the two circles whose participants would be indicated hitherto. Philippe Herzog remains loyal to the draft of a new Single Act, based on the model that led to the development of the great market without borders, followed in time by a genuine Constitution to be approved by all member states in simultaneous referendums leading to political Union. But is this second phase premature?
We can see that the French orientations are not too removed from the projects envisaged elsewhere. I will set about commenting on the prospects resulting from them tomorrow. (FR)