Who is going to read the whole of the presidency's “conclusions” on the new European treaty, published in our special Sunday edition? Not a lot of people, I imagine. It's a text full of annexes, footnotes, references to other texts and attached protocols, which discourages the best of intentions - “a very complicated simplified treaty”, as defined with the habitual irony of Jean-Claude Juncker. This is why I am going to add a few comments that are perhaps likely to help towards an understanding of what happened at the summit and what it achieved.
Calling for IGC, only thing at stake. My first remark is just a clarification about the presidency's warning to take a decision, if necessary, without Poland's agreement. This announcement was presented as the intention to negotiate the new treaty without Poland's participation. This is inexact: Ms Merkel was referring to the arranging of an inter-governmental conference (IGC). The reference to the decision taken in 1985 in Milan is clear, on that day the Italian presidency decided to call for an IGC, despite the opposition of Mrs Thatcher. The United Kingdom, however, then actively participated in this IGC, which resulted in the Single Act. It is clear that the new treaty will only be approved by unanimity and will also have to be ratified by all member states. The calling for of an IGC, a procedural decision, was the only thing in question.
New treaty is almost ready. Second comment: the “mandate for the IGC” eventually approved at unanimity, is much more than just a mandate. It in fact indicates, with precision and a lot of details, the content of the new treaty. Some of the formulations are certainly rather equivocal and it will be up to the negotiators and legal experts to interpret and codify them. But for the most part, the new treaty already exists. This is also the reason why the Portuguese presidency (which begins next week) agreed to finalise the text of the treaty in two or three weeks (in collaboration with the legal services of the Council and Commission) and to arrange for an IGC for 23 July. Negotiations are due to be concluded before the end of the year (by next October, according to the Portuguese prime minister's estimate). Attentive reading of the “presidency conclusions” will therefore allow one to get to know the content of the “modifying treaty” word for word. It is perhaps due to modesty (justified) that the summit did not officially retain the title of “simplified treaty”. This is justifiable due to the effective abandonment of provisions of a “constitutional nature”, as well as provisions summarising the Treaties that are currently in force (which are amended not replaced) but which do not correspond to reality as it is perceived.
Four essential aspects. It was right for the main actors at the summit's press conferences (see the first pages of our special Sunday bulletin) and the media summaries to highlight the institutional innovations introduced by the new treaty: extension of areas or decisions to be taken at majority (an aspect that is sometimes incorrectly confused with the voting procedure, which provoked so many worries); creation of a stable European Council presidency; reduction of the number of European commissioners; etc. I want to underscore four other aspects I regard as essential:
confirmation of “structured permanent cooperation” in defence, setting up a genuine “European defence zone” between member states that want and will participate in it;
improvement of provisions on “strengthened cooperation”, that can be launched by nine member states even when they have gone over 27. Procedures for the entry of new participants will be Community, apart from in strengthened “defence” cooperation;
provisions on services of general interest. The summit approved a protocol (III, 19, i) which recognises the principle of universal access to services of general economic interests and their essential role in the “significant room for manoeuvre” exercised by national, regional and local authorities in this domain; it is explained that the European Treaties “do not impinge on the competencies of member states in non-economic services of general interest.” This is the clarification for a problem seen as essential in relation to the European model for society;
an article on the voluntary withdrawal of a member state from the Union (taken from Article I-60 of the draft Constitutional Treaty) and the decision to regroup treaty revision procedures (the ordinary procedure and the two simplified procedures).
(F.R.)