The possibility of the European Council deciding to negotiate a new treaty this week, implies that the EU is renouncing some of the goals contained in the draft Constitutional Treaty (see this column yesterday). Together with the possible concessions, there are indispensable accomplishments which would be impossible to give up without rendering the whole exercise untenable. One can accept the giving up of what someone described as Europe's “ornaments” but the substance of the progress achieved has to be safeguarded. This is, in principle, the position of the institutions. Opinions on the hardcore are indispensable but differ somewhat. Analyses from several university institutes, political groups and experts have allowed for the clarification of different options and formulas. Their subsequent analyses, ideas and projects have been valuable and will be so in the following phase if the intergovernmental conference (IGC) is effectively launched this week. For the moment, attention is focused on the essential political choices.
Aspects Barroso considers untouchable. The president of the Commission declared: “I don't want a treaty that questions the acquis such as the Community method or the Commission's right of initiative. In this case, the Commission will be the first to say that it would be better to say where we are”. His refusal specifically targets the hypothesis whereby national parliaments acquire a right of veto on the Commission's proposals. The principle of increased involvement from the national parliaments in the management of the Union is definitive; the Constitutional Treaty includes provisions on this subject. Mr Barroso explained: “We have to enhance the role of national parliaments but without creating new formal structures that will complicate the Union's decision-making process, which is already quite full”. Instead, going in the direction of simplification is what is needed: “here, certain legislation takes six years, it's absurd”.
Second demand from Mr Barroso: to safeguard the character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a specific formula (inclusion in the new treaty or a reference making it binding). “I don't understand how a democrat can be opposed to this charter. Europeans have already accepted it”.
His third comment refers to the cost of not obtaining an agreement, “failure will mean a victory for nationalist forces that reject the very idea of the internal market. This will not just be the defeat of those who want a more political Europe, it will also be the defeat of those who want a more open Europe and those who want a Europe of solidarity and cohesion. Solidarity mechanisms will be in crisis”. According to Barroso, some controversial problems can, however, be settled, which will enable certain member states to remain out of this or that initiative by way of derogations or opting out”: “In principle, this formula is not desirable but it is the solution and I will not oppose it”.
Overall, the president of the Commission considers it indispensable to go beyond the purely institutional debate that concentrates on the rules for how the Union functions; it is necessary to avoid, “creating the impression that this is our main activity” when the EU spends all its time on decisions that have a direct impact on the daily life and wellbeing of all. The goal in the institutional debate is to improve the Union's operational decision-making capacity to the benefit of everyone.
EP is unequivocal. The European Parliament's position is reflected in the wide majority approval (459 votes for, 14 against, 32 abstentions) of the Brock/Baron Crespo resolution. This lists the elements that have to be preserved: primacy of European law; new typology for acts and procedures (“European laws” and “European framework laws”); legal personality of the EU; merger of the current “three pillars” (which legally separate economic and foreign/defence aspects from the legal/internal affairs aspects, with different voting procedures and non- uniform roles of the institutions); recognition of European values and the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; clarification of the Union and member states' respective competencies and respect for the subsidiarity principle. The resolution also cites, “the dual nature of the European Union: union of states and citizens”, which can be interpreted as support for the “double majority” voting formula at the Council because this formula, as the president of the EP, Hans-Gert Pöttering pointed out, is rightly based on the Union's two characteristics.
The plenary session's resolution was preceded by numerous individual parliamentary initiatives by MEPs, some of which occasionally elaborated quite alternative projects, like Jo Leinen, Andrew Duff, Gerard Onesta and others. Our publications have reported quite broadly on these initiatives. Gilles Savary spoke about one of the aspects that heads of government still have not officially tackled, but which could become important later: how to prevent a text approved by 27 member states from definitively failing if it is not ratified by just one member state alone? Savary suggests a mechanism founded on two circles: one for “those ratifying” and the other for “those not-ratifying”.
The latter would remain within the current treaties and “bridging clauses” would ensure compatibility between the two circles while leaving member states from the second circle the chance to join the first later on.
A decision by majority voting enough to call for IGC. The very timely initiative of Jo Leinen should also be underlined. This points out that an intergovernmental conference can be called on the basis of a decision reached by majority voting. An illustrious precedent demonstrates this point: the European Council of 28-29 June in Milan called for the IGC that gave birth to the Single Act and which was approved six months later by the Luxembourg European Council. Unanimity is needed for approving texts amending the treaties but it is not necessary for calling an IGC; in 1985 Mrs Thatcher was unable to oppose it.
The positions of the national parliaments are obviously not the same. Every parliament has its own position but these parliaments and the European Parliament meet together periodically and the last of these conferences on 12 June gave some interesting indications (see Albin Birger's report in EUROPE 9444). Several national parliamentarians, in effect, supported the idea of a two-speed Europe if it proves necessary. Ben Fayot from Luxembourg said that he hoped this wouldn't be necessary but argued that allowing some countries to progress is always better than not progressing at all. Sandro Gozi from Italy pointed out that “the EU cannot move forward at the pace of the slowest”. At the same time, national parliaments are asking for their European role to be reinforced, but without calling for the right of veto or the creation of a third chamber, as Edmund Wittbrodt from Poland and Harm Evert Waalkens from the Netherlands affirmed (both chair the European affairs committees in their parliaments).
London's intentions don't appear very reassuring. I don't want to go back to the positions of member state governments (we are always talking about them in this column as in the others) bur rather, the case of the United Kingdom. This week, the United Kingdom will be represented for the last time at the summit by Tony Blair. Neither he nor his successor, Gordon Brown, have made known the future orientations of their country. The European affairs minister, however, Geoff Hoon, has spoken out on several occasions, mainly in interviews. He affirmed that Gordon Brown is not and will not be less pro-European than Tony Blair. But what kind of Europe will he be in favour of? Hoon explained that the future prime minister is a convinced supporter of the single market, competition and a European solution to the problems of energy supply and investment into research. These are essential areas and are widely supported but they do not go beyond the traditional British objectives in favour of open markets and free competition. Hoon also mentioned new goals: defence, environment, climate change, “cooperation” in the areas of security and the fight against terrorism. Nothing on institutional reform (apart from possibly a long term president of the European Council) or other controversial issues. He asserted that they needed to talk about the achievements that interested people, such as low cost flights or reduced telephone prices.
On one institutional point he was categorical: there will be no referendum in the United Kingdom on the new European treaty because the British political system had never had a referendum on amendments to an existing treaty, and that was why they would not discuss it. It is known, however, that the leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron is calling for a referendum. Speaking in Brussels last spring, he even asked for Europe to give certain competencies back to member states. Observers are asking about what position Gordon Brown will take on this subject and are afraid that he will use the idea of a referendum to convince other member states to scupper any moves towards integration. Jo Leinen expressed this fear clearly in a joint EP/national parliaments meeting and called on the president of the Council, Frank-Walter Steinmeier “not to give in to blackmail” by those brandishing the threat of a referendum to obtain withdrawals from a text that they had themselves signed in 2004.
British “problem” persists. I definitely believe that the real problem in the next round of negotiations will, once again, be the British problem. The United Kingdom is a big country that represents a political culture that cannot be compared, but neither the majority of its citizens nor its press believe in European integration, they reject it. Several political leaders from other member states or European institutions are basing themselves on “opting out”, “derogations that the United Kingdom likes collecting” to get around this obstacle. Will this be enough? Or are those who do not believe it actually right - those who have indicated that in the event of crisis, “we will go back to square one and we will go forward with those that wish to”? We'll have the beginnings of an answer at the end of the week. (F.R.)