Some discussion will not wait for the new treaty. As everyone now acknowledges, things must begin at once. For the most part, the new European treaty is clearly marked out. Despite a number of obstacles that will inevitably hinder its fine-tuning, and despite the stubbornness of those who make the law in Poland, the IGC responsible for finalising the text should not encounter obstacles of an insurmountable kind. Then there will have to be national ratification in all 27 countries, which will not be such an easy matter everywhere, with referendums envisaged or announced here and there. But some dossiers cannot wait for the new treaty to take effect. There are deadlines: reform of agricultural policy, preparation of new financial perspectives. Other debates are called for by some member states (for example, on Europe's frontiers). In other cases, international timetables must be adhered to (e.g. the Doha Trade Round).
France has in practice already begun work on a number of issues: competition rules, Community preference, safeguarding agriculture, and the boundaries of the EU. Work that was already underway within the European Commission and its services will be consolidated and extended.
Will the 27 move forward together? An essential question is now raised - Will member states follow the movement together, or is it likely, if not certain, that some initiatives will not be taken unanimously? The institutions shy away from this question, preferring not to answer (and one can see why), but this is not the case of a number of well-known far-sighted persons who immediately realised the importance of the new provision which (and the IGC mandate on this is clear) will fix at nine the number of member states that can establish “enhanced cooperation”.
Jean-Claude Juncker has said: “I believe the 27 should always try to move forward together. But it will be possible for 9 to do so when it is perfectly obvious that we do not all share the same ambition. This is not a threat but rather a way of coming out of the impasse”. He went on to point out: “We had two derogations on the euro. We now have a derogation on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a British exception on judicial cooperation, and a small exemption taking the form of a unilateral declaration on the part of Poland on family law and morality. In some ways, although I do not like the expression, we already have a number of points under a two-speed Europe, or at any rate under variable geometry”.
Jacques Delors was just as explicit in the quote I made earlier this week: “When will we have the first initiative for progress to be made by a group of member states, on economic and monetary union, on social issues, or energy?” He explained himself more clearly this spring in a speech before the Belgian Senate, saying: “The enhanced cooperation formula would apply within the Union's general rules and would under no circumstances cause dismantling of Europe's political or institutional structure. On the contrary, it would allow new actions to be implemented for a closer Union. Europe will not make progress other than along this road”. That same day (16 March), Mr Delors had regretted that, although the cooperation formula already existed, treaties in force did not provide “institutional facilities for implementation” of this cooperation. With the new treaty, this will be the case, on track for an “ever closer Union” (taken up in the new version).
Forthcoming debates. Debates that cannot wait for the new treaty are highly significant. They concern:
a) Future of European agriculture. Progress is being made on the awareness of its role and true significance. The debate on reviewing CAP spending should clarify many things.
b) Future financing of the Union. The European Parliament has already produced the first documents.
c) European single market, its identity and the principle of “Community preference”. The “employers” group at the Economic and Social Committee has devoted a first discussion to this vast subject (see our bulletin No.9459). I shall come back to the lessons learned from this preliminary debate.
d) Political and institutional strengthening of the eurozone, not only from the point of view of economic and budgetary coordination but also with regard to the external representation of single currency.
e) Boundaries of Europe. France has confirmed its intention to raise this issue, over and beyond the specific case of Turkey. The Portuguese EU Council presidency considers it is not appropriate to go into this further, and that for now one should keep to a preliminary debate and open examination on the dossier.
In the next few days, I shall be taking stock of these various subjects.
(F.R.)