Essential of reforms is safeguarded. There is nothing to be surprised about if the compromise on the new European treaty does not satisfy everyone. This is the very nature of the term “compromise”; everyone has to make concessions. Those who know the history of Europe, with its progress and stagnations, its life force and crises, are aware that a good approach does not consist in weighting up what has been won with what has been lost but rather, to see whether the overall result represents progress in European construction and makes possible a relaunch that is political, economic and psychological. I believe that the response has been positive. This is the position of the president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, the two rapporteurs Elmar Brok and Enrique Baron Crespo and, also with regrets and reservations, that of Jo Leinen, the president of the constitutional affairs committee. The EU can now surmount the crisis, which partly paralysed it, because the essential part of the institutional reforms have been safeguarded. Nothing has been acquired yet but several results are possible. There are also some transformations to the very structure of the European Union, in relation to the member states, which have been confirmed by their refusal to accept all the effects of this.
We now need to look forward in three directions:
1. Conclude in the deadlines decided on (end of the year) to fine tune new treaty. I barely dare refer to the adjective “simplified” because the European Council conclusions are so complex and complicated. Once again, Jean-Claude Juncker found the appropriate formula, “a simplified treaty which is very complicated”; others spoke of a “real opaque effort”.
We only have to read the following pages of the “conclusions of the presidency to see this. Everyone reads them as they want to. Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Monica Frassoni judged the result, “depressing: total distrust, undignified cattle trading” a victory for the “adversaries of Europe”. The position of the British organisation Open Europe, however, said that the agreement corresponds to “a Constitution under another name”. There are in fact a number of traps that needed to be avoided falling into.
2. How to see the fundamental economic and social choices of the EU. The new treaty will provide a few indications but some real debates are inevitable and expected, particularly in relation to: a) Euro zone governance, how to reset the economic limp in tandem with the more solid monetary limb; b) the role of Community preference in the context of globalisation; c) the meaning of solidarity in energy supply; d) the place of European agriculture in food safety and the fight against starvation in the world; e) certain rules for financial capitalism.
Nicolas Sarkozy partially anticipated one of these debates with his initiative on changes to the place of “free unhindered competition”, which will no longer be one of the Union's objectives but rather one of the ways to achieve the Union's objectives. This initiative does not change anything in relation to European regulation or institutional competences in these are but the opening of the debate at the summit was a surprise and it heralds the scale of the debates to follow.
3. Preparing a two-speed Europe? We can see that I've put a question mark. In their declaration quoted above, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Monica Frassoni quoted some of the “positive aspects” of the summit, “the fact that there is now a clear procedure on how to leave the EU”, adding, “some member states such as Poland and the United Kingdom, do not want to share the common values of the EU and should seriously contemplate the exit clause”. Despite appearances, I don't think that the problem is posed for Poland yet because the situation could be reversed with future elections and the support of citizens for European construction will only grow. But in the United Kingdom, the experience proves nothing has changed. British personalities in favour of integration in Europe have always existed and will always exist but public opinion in general and the press shows that there's no change. New derogations just decided for this country, calls for a serious and indispensable reflection. I will soon be returning to this question.
(F.R.)