Obvious progress characterises the preparations for new European treaty negotiations on replacing the constitutional project, whilst at the same time preserving its core text. The German presidency of the Council is working assiduously on this subject. Without claiming to know what the results of the negotiations will be, we can see that preparations for the “roadmap” are expected to be approved by the European Council on 22 June and are on track. More importantly, this road map does not just contain a work calendar but also substantial components that bestow the new treaty with its essential characteristics. This goal was confirmed by Jean-Claude Juncker at an Economic and Social Committee (see this column in EUROPE 9410) and by Tony Blair at almost the same time in an interview with different journalists (EUROPE 9411). The existence of a letter from Ms Merkel to her colleagues about the list of “substantial components” was a journalistic concoction but German diplomats had sent member state governments a questionnaire calling on them to rethink the main suggestions flowing from the preliminary sentence in the work of the presidency, a questionnaire that was published in the most recent issue of EUROPE. This initiative set out the preparations for bilateral contacts that are currently going on between the presidency and official member state bodies. The questionnaire itself already provides several indications about national orientations.
By using this questionnaire and other indications as a basis, I am going to attempt to summarise the overall orientations that are taking shape.
1. Orientation in favour of getting rid of the word “constitution” and what it implies. Even the member states that have ratified the existing draft acknowledge that the term Constitution has provoked misunderstandings and given certain sections of the public the impression that the EU would like to become a super-state, a goal that is not being pursued by any government. The withdrawal of this word, according to many countries, also involves other amendments to the terminology: getting rid of the term, “European minister for foreign affairs”, while preserving the substance of Javier Solana's competencies (already outlined, as we are aware), including, therefore the vice presidency of the Commission; removing the term, “European law”; removing references to EU symbols (currency, flag, anthem). If the preamble in the current treaty disappears, the question of the reference to “Christian roots” automatically disappears.
2. Community law. Some governments have called for the removal of a direct and explicit reference in the text to the primacy of Community law over national laws.
3. Not replacing existing treaties with a Single Treaty. There will be a trend towards the old method of revising treaties in force, which according to several governments, will at the same time involve rejecting the procedures of the Convention.
4. Methodological differences and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Some governments want to keep the whole text of the Charter in the treaty but others want a simple referral, which would preserve its legal status. Most want to safeguard the text but opinions diverge about its main character and the legal procedures.
5. Safeguarding new institutional mechanisms. This is a key point. A clear majority of governments want to maintain the innovations introduced in the current draft, which represents an overall balance: extension of majority voting to other areas: extension of European Parliament/Council co-decision; new calculation of majority voting (with double majority: of member states and population). Poland is still opposed to the latter formula but is not calling for a pure and simple return to the method of Nice. It has actually suggested a new calculating method (EUROPE 9397). This will be one of the sensitive points in the negotiations.
6. Explicit reference to the European Union's social dimension. This would specifically mean that the third part of the current draft is not completely withdrawn.
7. Maintaining or introducing references and provisions on “new challenges”: energy, climate change, immigration policy. This involves the application of the “Treaty+” principle and the addition of supplementary provisions to the current draft. This operation may in fact attain a broad consensus.
8. Extending the areas where strengthened cooperation is possible. The presidency has not explicitly referred to strengthened cooperation but does include a mechanism for opting in or opting out. This is effectively the same thing. This orientation poses a problem in a number of countries.
9. Inserting enlargement “criteria” in the treaty. Several governments support this demand. Working out the exact “criteria” for this still needs to be done: the Copenhagen text as it stands, or with additional clarification?
Agreement on the calendar. This is being added to the nine orientations mentioned above, the essential component of which has already been assessed and agreed to - the work calendar. Certain member states had initially expressed a preference for a slower pace: either for arranging an IGC (United Kingdom, Sweden) or if agreed, for the entry into force of the new treaty (Poland). These reservations appear to have been overcome. It is therefore reasonable to consider that in principle it has been agreed that: a) the 21-22 June summit should open negotiations on the new treaty by defining at the same time its essential components, and deciding on arrangements for an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). Angela Merkel might even arrange the IGC opening session for the end of June in an effort to end on a good note for her presidency; b) the IGC is expected to be concluded for the end of the year so that ratification is begun at the beginning of 2008, and so that the new treaty enters into force in the first part of 2009, before the June European elections.
National positions. Some heads of government have already spoken about some of the aspects that have been mentioned: the Netherlands by way of a government letter to their national parliament; Poland by suggesting an alternative mechanism for calculating qualified majority voting; the Czech Republic, for withdrawing reservations on the calendar etc. I spoke about this last week (EUROPE 9408). Jean-Claude Juncker and Tony Blair then provided elements from their overall vision of the new treaty.
From Mr Juncker to Tony Blair. I heard Jean-Claude Juncker speaking “live” and this has already been mentioned in EUROPE 9410. The president of the Eurogroup was rather sarcastic about the position of those that would like to abandon the Charter of Rights, but who harp on about the lessons of democracy and respect for human rights in third countries. He was of the opinion that the Convention formula should be withdrawn because it has already been tried and has failed: representatives from civil society and different economic and social sectors fully participated in the elaboration of the draft constitution, which was, at the end of the day, rejected by the people in two member states.
Tony Blair's positions have been illustrated to journalists from different countries but no newspaper has published his overall view. For understandable reasons, they all retained the aspects they considered of most interest to their readers. Therefore, the Financial Times highlighted the fact that Tony Blair does not want a national referendum on ratification (needed for a constitutional text, but which in his opinion is not justified for a revision treaty) and Le Monde, left out aspects on the new treaty. The summary published in Agence EUROPE (9411) brought all the different elements together by attempting to obtain a balance. On the new treaty, Tony Blair said that the June summit ought to obtain an agreement on both swiftly arranging the IGC (he mentioned the second half of the year under the Portuguese presidency) and the basic principles and parameters of the new treaty, of which the key components are expected to be outlined on 22 June. “Why wait? The positions of the different member states will not change afterwards”, he pointed out. As for how the institutions function, he affirmed that the United Kingdom is in favour of qualified majority voting in several economic and social areas, while pointing out that even with the unanimity rule, the EU had made progress in areas where it was now working: energy, environment and immigration.
The position of some British Conservatives at the European Parliament that called for a referendum in each member state on the “regrettable resuscitation of the European constitution” is undoubtedly a response to Tony Blair's new position that rules out a referendum in his country.
Some aspects to flesh out. I intend to return to the question of ratification procedures, as well as two other points: a) some legal aspects and other difficulties that could make the negotiations for the new treaty difficult; b) the position that the European Parliament will take. Its two rapporteurs (Elmar Brok for the EPP and Enrique Baron Crespo for the PES) are currently adding the finishing touches to their report. They have indicated that they fully support the planned calendar and that for the contents of the new treaty, they will be calling on the EP to oppose any changes to institutional reform in the current draft. Parliament's position will have a decisive influence on how events pan out. (FR)