A few hours away from the opening of the European Council, decisive (or almost) for the new European treaty, no significant amendments are expected to member states' original positions. Everything's been said, negotiations will begin. But a few last minute observations and recommendations (sometimes accompanied by calls to be reasonable) deserve a mention.
1. Member states that have ratified the Constitutional Treaty have already made two major concessions that are indispensable to obtaining a possible compromise, namely: a) they agreed that the envisaged text is not a basic treaty but rather, an amending treaty that does not replace existing Treaties but instead introduces amendments to them; b) they agreed to give up symbols and the preamble. We sometimes get the impression that this essential starting point sometimes gets forgotten.
2. United Kingdom will only partially participate in new treaty (if it is completed). Tony Blair's “red lines” involve very significant aspects (nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, powers of the European foreign affairs minister, autonomy of the national legal system, tax and social decisions decided with majority voting); the derogations that will result from this will leave the British on the margins of a considerable part of the innovations envisaged. The opting out regime is at risk of being widely used. This is the condition London has posed to avoid holding a national referendum.
3. The Franco-Spanish “common platform” has obvious symbolic meaning. France is the only big country that rejected the constitutional draft in a referendum; Spain is the only big country that approved it in a referendum. The common platform means that past differences no longer carry any weight and that the new draft is accepted by two countries whose legal situations were originally far removed from each other.
4. Mr Barroso's recommendation to Poland. In his press conference on Tuesday (see yesterday's bulletin), the president of the European Commission called on new member states to be more “constructive” and prove that their accession does not make management of the EU more difficult and that they, on the contrary, provide it with a new impetus. In reply to a question that was obviously aimed mainly at Poland, Mr Barroso underlined the danger that “the shadow of failure could fall on these countries”. If they are seen as blocking progress, they could, initially, obtain a short term advantage, but this would then prove dangerous to themselves (in his introductory speech, the president pointed out that failure would specifically block the progress of the “Europe of solidarity”).
5. The question of national referendums gets louder. Everything possible had been done to enable the new treaty (which lost its constitutional character) to be ratified by national parliaments without resorting to referendums. Mr Sarkozy, in particular, announced this on a number of occasions in his presidential election campaign, in order to obtain a clear mandate in this connection. The situation is, in fact, more complex in several member states. Ireland's specific case is known about. The British case, appeared, in a legal perspective, to have been settled, following explanations from the European affairs minister, Geoff Hoon, (mentioned in this column yesterday) but has re-emerged for reasons that are still not entirely clear. In Denmark, there is even a polemic within the government majority, and according to some observers the Danish situation could affect the one in the Netherlands. This confusion could reinforce the conviction of those who believe it inevitable that we move towards a two-speed Europe involving swift and decisive initiatives between member states that want to advance. Given the other considerations indicated in point 2, I believe that clarification of the British position is inevitable and I intend to go back to it in light of the European Council results.
6. Position of European trade unions (ETUC). What John Monks, secretary general of the European Trade Union Confederation, indicated this week (see other article) goes way beyond a simple position. If the new treaty does not make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding, unions will campaign against the new treaty and will call on the European Parliament not to approve it. We are also aware that some national parliaments will draw a link between their approval of a European text and it being accepted by the EP.
(F.R.)