Moving forward at any rate. Defining what should be safeguarded from the draft Constitutional Treaty, while taking into consideration the possibility that, if there is no unanimity, the new European treaty will be applied by the member states that support it: - these are the two major challenges to be faced if the crisis within the EU is to be solved (see this column in yesterday's bulletin). The legal and editorial aspects of the new text are mentioned less and less in the higher circles. Heads of government reason in more political terms indicating the nature and the content of the innovations to be maintained: extension of majority vote, new common policies, strengthened powers in new areas, etc. The summit on 21-22 June will have to take a stance on these major options, while the task of drafting the texts and the composition of the new treaty into sections, protocols, etc. would be incumbent upon the intergovernmental conference (IGC).
The controversial list of innovations to be retained or introduced gives an indication of the extent to which opinions differ and explains why a growing number of the authorities responsible evoke the possibility of separating the member states that wish to move forward from the others. In order to achieve the most, the countries with high ambitions warn that they will move forward at any rate, that they will not accept a cut price treaty, and that they prefer (partial and definitive) “differentiation” to being less ambitious. How? To what extent does this perspective come under negotiating tactics?
Constructive approach. The last to express his views clearly this week before the Parliament was Romano Prodi (see our bulletin No 9430). I quote: “I do not believe we should necessarily all move forward at the same speed. I would like it to be so and will do all I can to see that it is, but I realise it is not possible. Already today, some of the most significant policy choices in Europe, such as the single currency or the Schengen Area, were achieved by just a part of the member states. It does not go against the others. No-one is kept out. On the contrary, the door stays open. This choice has been respected by those who did not yet feel ready to go in the same direction immediately. I hope that this constructive approach will also prevail in the future, and that it will triumph over any attempt at veto”.
As one can see, the Italian prime minister does not evoke division but rather a choice to be made by common accord, according to the terms and conditions set out in the treaty itself. This is the formula of “differentiation” long recommended by Jacques Delors and preferable by far to a treaty that is not signed up to by all member states, and which would imply not only political division but also countless legal and institutional complications. How, moreover, can one forget that in one major area at any rate, progress does not involve all member states? By this, I mean the economic governance of the eurozone. By definition, it will only involve countries that use the single currency, which coordinate their budgetary and economic policies within the Eurogroup, now transformed into an official body with its own power of decision. Not so easy for the United Kingdom to swallow …
Using “enhanced cooperation” while improving the formula. The guidelines set out by Nicolas Sarkozy, partially reviewed and corrected (for example with regard to the European Central Bank) and presented in Brussels (see our bulletin yesterday) are just as explicit. In order to move forward, even if we do not all agree on the content, the French president did not mention a treaty reserved for the most ambitious states, but suggested taking up the “enhanced cooperation” method which, in theory, already exists but which, in practice, is not applicable. It must be made functional. Mr Sarkozy also expressed his distrust of the “circles” formula that would relegate certain member states to a “second division”.
Neither Mr Prodi nor Mr Sarkozy, as we can see, support the maximalist solution upheld by Guy Verhofstadt, that of the United States of Europe, which would inevitably cause a separation between member states. They do, however, support the possibility of combining 27-member unity with separate progress by a number of member states in specific areas. Among the developments that they consider indispensable, one leaves me perplexed - that relating to the permanent president of the European Council, who would be appointed for himself without having to be a head of government. I see this as an innovation of rhetoric. This president would either have to compete with the president of the Commission and create a parallel administration, or would have no power at all. He would make beautiful speeches that would not be taken seriously either by the president of the United States or by Vladimir Putin or by any other eminent personality with true power for that matter. But this is just a minor detail.
(F.R.)