Brussels, 22/06/2007 (Agence Europe) - Towards the end of Friday afternoon, there was still nothing to indicate whether Heads of state and governments in the EU would reach an agreement on the terms of a negotiating mandate and the organisation of an Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) to finalise and adopt a new treaty for the European Union. As we went to press, leaders were getting ready to receive a new draft text that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was expected to present to delegations towards 18.30H after a number of bilateral consultations (several with Polish president Lech Kaczynski, Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, Han Peter Balkenende and Jean-Claude Juncker, which took much of the day. After reflection time, leaders are expected to see each other again in the evening for a dinner, seen as crucial for the success of the summit.
During the day very little information filtered out about the different bilateral meetings but it is obvious that the Polish demand to get rid of double majority was at the centre of negotiations. It was clear that the German president wanted to first of all settle the Polish problem before tackling the British “red line” demands of Tony Blair, who as indicated by the Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker on Friday, could prove more problematic in the end than the Poles.
Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski stayed in Warsaw but also declared on Friday afternoon to journalists that “some” of the Polish proposals had been accepted by the German presidency. According to Kacznski, “the dispute between Poland and Germany is not very big. There are, rather, problems with other countries”.
Double majority. Whereas Poland demonstrated a certain flexibility from the outset, it no longer insisted on its own square root based proposal, several compromise options circulated on Friday afternoon. For example, that launched on Friday morning by Lech Kaczynski himself, to postpone the entry into force of double majority till 2020 and to keep vote weighting included in the Treaty of Nice (currently in force). Juncker thought this a very bad solution, as did most delegations. In the afternoon, 2014 was mooted as a date for entry into force of double majority.
After a Friday afternoon meeting between Merkel, Sarkozy and Valdas Adamou from Lithuania and Lech Kaczynski from Poland, diplomats close to the delegations concerned affirmed that a preliminary agreement had been found between the four leaders on five points: entry into force of double majority in 2014; the number necessary for constituting a minority blockage would go from 4 to 5; the three countries from the “Weimar Triangle” (Germany, France and Poland) would work out ways for closer cooperation on European subjects; the “enhanced Ioannina compromise” in relation to the constitutional treaty insofar as it will become permanent (even after 2014); a solidarity clause will be closed in the treaty. According to the same diplomatic sources, Lech Kaczynski from Poland is still expected to consult his brother in Warsaw on the draft agreement; in the event of a Polish green light, the German presidency intends to defend it against other delegations.
Extending the Treaty of Nice provisions until 2014 or 2020, which would allow the possibility of maintaining till this date (for counties of the so called cohesion: including Poland) to have a minority blockage during annual Community budget adoption procedures. The temptations is significant enough for many member states each year to reduce funding for agriculture and regional policy. Article 55 of the draft constitutional treaty explains that the Council adopts financial perspectives at unanimity (after approval by the European Parliament). However, there is a “bridging clause” that gives the European Council the possibility of making legislation and voting at majority. This multiannual financial framework puts a ceiling on annual spending according to the main sectors of Union activity for a period of at least five years, a ceiling that had to be respected by the annual budget.
On Thursday evening, Sarkozy proposed a formula based on the Ioannina compromise, forged by member states in 1994 at the request of Spain, which was concerned about losing its weight in voting at the Councils when Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU. The Ioannina compromise allows a small group of countries that during a vote by majority, can be close to the minority blockage threshold but without actually reaching it, to demand re-examination of the text an new debates in a reasonable deadline.
According to some sources, Jean-Claude Juncker suggested a similar formula (already put forward by CEPS, see EUROPE 9451), which would take account of the Polish “square root” system while keeping the double majority rule as a base. Quality majority votes in Council are expected, as foreseen, to have the support of 55% of member states representing at least 65% of the EU population, but any member state would be entitled to verify whether the same result is obtained using the square root method. If the result is different, then the decision would be postponed and negotiations on the dossier in question continued within “three or four months”.
Tony Blair's four “red lines”. On Friday afternoon, the British position seemed to be as problematical as that of Poland, with Tony Blair still brandishing the threat of blocking an agreement if his four “red line” demands are not met. Tony Blair does not want: - the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be binding or, at least, he wants Britain to have a written “opt out” so that British legislation and common law are in no way changed; - a treaty that would reduce the role of British foreign policy or that of the British foreign affairs minister. London wishes to maintain full national ability to decide on foreign policy and is not only opposed to the name “Foreign Minister” set out in the constitutional treaty, but would also like to seriously restrict the authority of the EU foreign minister; - to give up control by the common law justice and police systems (i.e. no qualified majority voting on JHA); - transition to qualified majority in policies that could have major consequences for the British tax and social security systems. “There will be no agreement if these three red line demands are not met, it is as easy as that”, repeated Mr Blair's spokesman.
EU objectives. The surprise came on Thursday evening when the French said they wanted to amend part of the constitutional treaty dedicated to the objectives of the EU, which must, according to the draft mandate developed by the German Presidency, be taken up in the future reformed Treaty. This question was largely challenged during the referendum campaign in France, and Paris hoped it would be partially reviewed. French President Nicolas Sarkozy seemed on Friday afternoon to have persuaded his European partners that the principle of competition non-distortion should no longer be included in the objectives, but he was unable to exclude a reference dear to the European Central Bank on price stability.
Article I-3 of the draft constitutional treaty stating that the Union should give its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted, would therefore stop after the reference to the internal market. According to a French diplomat, competition “is not an objective in itself, or a value, but a means”. Even if removed here, the concepts of free and fair competition exist in other provisions of the EC Treaty which is the basis of the EU competition policy. On another objective, according to which the EU is working for sustainable development in Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, the German presidency refuses to haggle over the replacement of the term price stability with what Paris sees as the less controversial “non-inflationary growth”.
Enlargement criteria. The Netherlands and France, in particular, want the future treaty to refer to and, if possible, set out the “Copenhagen criteria”. While the Dutch government is pushing for a close definition of the criteria in the text (The Hague argues that the scepticism of the Dutch people about successive EU enlargements and the possible accession of Turkey played a decisive role in the “no” vote in the referendum on the Constitutional Treaty), France does not want to open an in-depth debate on enlargement at the European Council, but has offered to introduce a reference to accession criteria into the IGC mandate. For Paris, the real debate on enlargement will take place at the European Summit in December 2007.
CFSP. According to diplomats, the leaders reached agreement early on Friday evening on the title, role and powers of the future head of European foreign affairs. According to these sources, the title will be European Union High Representative for foreign and security policy, as suggested by Spanish head of government José Luis Zapatero, and the High Representative will also hold the position of European Commission Vice-President. He/She will chair Councils of EU Foreign Ministers and will be at the head of a service made up of the Commission's diplomatic network and diplomats from member states. (hb/ab/lc)