Brussels, 21/06/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Council began late on Thursday afternoon with an urgent call from the German presidency for all to show willing in the search for a “fair agreement” on a “precise and comprehensive” negotiating mandate which would allow the 27 member states to quickly convene a short inter-governmental conference to finalise and adopt the new treaty. “I hope that all work in a spirit that will allow us to achieve a fair agreement,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel before the Council began. Apart from the Polish problem (weighting of votes in the Council), it is especially Tony Blair's “red lines” which could bog down negotiations. On Thursday, just before he arrived in Brussels, the UK Prime Minister said once again that he would not accept any compromise which failed to take account of his country's concern to “keep control” of its foreign policy, its defence policy, its social security and its civil law.
On Thursday afternoon, Ms Merkel took part in a summit of leaders of the European People's Party (EPP), whose President Wilfried Martens afterwards expressed the “unanimous support” for the draft compromise presented by the German presidency on Tuesday evening (see below for details). This proposal had the support of “all Prime Ministers present” at the meeting, although there were some, not insurmountable, Czech reservations, Mr Martens said. “It's the only possible option,” he said.
Socialist leaders sent the same signal, giving “100% full backing to the paper proposed by the German presidency, which is, for us, the only paper, the compromise,” said PES leader Poul Nyrup Rasmussen following the “pre-European Council summit of the Party of European Socialists, which Mr Blair did not attend. Former Danish Prime Minister Mr Rasmussen stressed the need to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a section on climate change and a social dimension. Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer thanked the German presidency for the proposal which “allows Europe to unite” and he said that a binding Charter of Fundamental Rights was essential. It was a matter of credibility, even in EU relations with Russia, he said, imagining Vladimir Putin's smile if the EU were unable to give itself a legally binding charter. Can we expect further concessions? No, said the Austrian Chancellor, who said that “we cannot allow it that those who have ratified … and made all the concessions up until now …see further demands appearing”. It was also essential to retain the competences of the European Foreign Minister, he went on, but without insisting on the retention of the title of “Minister”. “It is our clear intention to fight for the substance of the treaty, not the symbols,” Mr Gusenbauer added. Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado argued for the adoption of a “clear and precise mandate” for the IGC. The reform must allow the EU to be “a force for stability and balance in the world,” he added. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stressed the need not to leave any open questions, in order to be sure of having a treaty before the European elections in 2009. When asked about Tony Blair's veto on the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, he said only that he would have liked the British Prime Minister to have been present to discuss this with him.
There was agreement within the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), said Annemie Neyts on Thursday at a press conference which followed the pre-Summit meeting of the group which she chairs. “Moderately optimistic” about the outcome of the Summit, ALDE representatives gave broad support to the German compromise and were firm about its contents, not wanting to re-open the institutional package. For all, the principle of the double majority and the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental rights were untouchable parts of the reformed treaty. Similarly, while supporting the content of the post, most were relaxed about the title to be given to the minister of foreign affairs. “We need a treaty now and a decision now”, stressed Anders Fogh Rasmussen, calling on all member states to be “flexible” and above all “certain”, saying that this was an opportunity that they must seize to show that, in the EU, “solidarity is a two-way street”. The Danish prime minister said he “fully supports the compromise of the German presidency”, and hoped that the constitution's progress on extending qualified majority vote and in institutional matters would be preserved. His Romanian counterpart, Calin Popescu-Tariceanu, took the same view. He felt that the solution put forward by Chancellor Angela Merkel was “acceptable”. Andrus Ansip also wished to preserve what had been achieved in the draft constitution. The Estonian prime minister affirmed that he “supported all presidency proposals” and had no red lines, except perhaps that of reopening the institutional chapter as, he explained, “it would be a waste of time of 2 or 3 years”. The prime minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, and the Swedish minister for European affairs, Cecilia Malmström, also spoke along the same lines, the latter saying she was “quite happy” with the German compromise.
“Absurd” or at best “not very wise”. The reference made by Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski to the demographic power his country would have enjoyed, had it not been for the human losses during the Second World War, does not correspond to the European idea. “The EU is about reconciliation of the past,” Ms Neyts said. We have to “leave history behind us and grasp the future,” said Mr Rasmussen. He was joined in this sentiment by Mr Ansip whose country “will never forget what happened, but doesn't want to live in the past”.
Main points of draft mandate proposed by German presidency
The draft mandate for the IGC, which the German presidency distributed to delegations on Tuesday and which still, on Thursday evening, formed the basis for discussion of the European Council, proposes a “reform treaty” amending the two existing Treaties: the current Treaty of the European Union (TEU), which will retain its name, and the “Treaty establishing the European Community” which will become the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The EU will have a legal personality and the term “Community” will be replaced everywhere by “Union”. All reference to its constitutional nature has been removed from the text: the term “constitution” does not feature anywhere, the title “European Minister” of Foreign Affairs has been removed (another name will have to be found since the position will be retained) and the denomination “European law” has been abandoned in favour of the current names given to legislative acts - directives, regulations and decisions. There is no mention of any symbols. The express statement of the primacy of European law over national law has been abandoned, but the IGC will probably, according to the presidency's text, adopt a statement which refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on the subject (which confirms the primacy of European law).
According to the text from the presidency, almost all the innovations of the Constitutional Treaty will be incorporated into the two amended Treaties - including the “institutional package”: “double majority” for qualified majority voting in the Council (the presidency states simply in a footnote that “two delegations”, Poland and the Czech Republic, challenge this system and want it to be debated at the European Council), the permanent presidency of the Council, the creation of the post of European Foreign Affairs Representative (no longer is there any mention of “Minister”), a reduction in the size of the European Commission and enhancement of the areas of responsibility of its president, and the apportionment of seats in the European Parliament. Also included in the new Treaty of the European Union are: - those parts of the Constitutional Treaty on the values and aims of the EU, on relations between the EU and member states and on the suspension of the rights of member states; - a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (rather than the inclusion of the full text as in the Constitutional Treaty), stating that it is binding in nature and “setting out the scope of its application”, in order to take account of the problems it poses for the UK, which refuses to countenance any change to its common law; - a statement, in the section on the EU's fundamental principles (at the request of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom principally), that “the Union shall act only within the limits of competences conferred upon it by member states”: to reassure these same countries, it will be stated in an Article that the Treaties can be revised either to increase or to reduce these competences granted to the Union; - enhancement of the role of national parliaments in the legislative process beyond what was contained in the Constitutional Treaty (but they will not have the right of veto): national MPs will have eight weeks (rather than the six of the Constitutional Treaty) to give their opinion on legislative proposals, and, additionally, if one third of national parliaments (depending on the number of votes granted to each one) challenges a proposal (for failing to comply with the subsidiarity principle), the Commission will re-examine the text to modify it, leave it unchanged or retract it. If the Commission decides to leave a proposal unchanged, it will be required to justify its decision in a reasoned opinion.
With regard to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the presidency text proposes (at the request of the UK notably) to state in the Treaty on the European Union that this policy is “subject to specific procedures”, that it is defined and implemented “by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously”, that “the adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded” and that the European Court of Justice “shall not have jurisdiction with respect to this area” except the “jurisdiction to review the legality of certain decisions”.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU will, according to the presidency text, include all the amendments brought in by the Constitutional Treaty, for example, in the areas of the competences and extension of qualified majority voting, and of co-decision (with, probably, special treatment for the United Kingdom in some areas). (hb/ab/oj/gc)