It comes as no surprise that the three opinions required for convening the intergovernmental conference (IGC) to revise the Treaties in force have now been given. The way is now open to proceed. It is not essential for these opinions to be favourable but they must exist. And yet, it is essential for them to be positive. It would have been highly embarrassing for the Council to convene the IGC if one of the opinions had been negative, especially that from the European Parliament, because a number of national parliaments link their ratification to the position adopted by the EP. The three opinions have been amply summarised in our bulletins.
Importance of monetary innovations. It is compulsory to have the opinion of the European Central Bank (ECB) when the IGC makes changes in the monetary field, as is the case. The ECB logically focuses on this category of change, and it is in favour of them on condition that all the changes foreseen are taken on board, no more no less (to avoid innovation or surprise). In the official texts, monetary innovations are dispersed and, grouped together by the ECB, appear highly significant. The Economic and Monetary Union becomes one of the Union's “objectives” and the euro (which appears for the first time with its denomination) is the currency used. Governance of the eurozone is strengthened by increased Commission powers of surveillance in the event of excessive budgetary deficits and by an autonomous decision-making capacity for the eurozone (Eurogroup). The prospect of unified external representation of the eurozone in international financial institutions is indicated.
Respecting the mandate. The European Commission's opinion can be summarised by the improvements that the new treaty will bring to the content and the functioning of the Union. It gives its support to these improvements on condition that the mandate for the IGC, approved by the European Council of 23 June, is complied with as such. This is natural but at the same time it is essential as this condition explains why, in this case, recourse to an IGC is neither back-pedalling of democracy or of transparency compared to the Convention. The “mandate” in fact takes up the essential part of the results of the Convention, and it would be pointless to do it all over again.
EP criticises failings but acknowledges progress. The most important opinion is that of the European Parliament because the debate was public and all opinions were expressed. Let us look at just a few of the comments made in Strasbourg: a) anything lost from the Convention's draft is “the price to be paid”; b) “a simplified treaty - what a joke!”, it is more complicated than the draft; c) “a subtle balance between ambition and political realism” - at first sight contradictory, these comments are each partially true and justify a largely positive opinion (526 votes for, 138 against, 26 abstentions). Criticism was largely justified, and even the most virulent was welcome, such as that by Marco Pannella (denouncing the return to a party-Europe) or Marco Cappato's stroke of inspiration aimed at postponing the parliamentary opinion until the second half of September. But this would prevent opening the IGC in good time, as the Treaty will (it is hoped) be near the point of signature at the end of September …
Criticism of the failings is justified, and useful, but blocking everything is pointless and runs counter to the only valid criterion of assessment which is: - does the mandate bring considerable and concrete progress for the building of Europe? Fortunately, progress has not been forgotten in the parliamentary debate. For example, provisions relating to services of general interest have been defined as a huge step forward. As the overall assessment is positive, cries of rage make a lot of noise but do nothing for the building process, although some criticism may be justified.
Clarifying British ambivalence. I do not share one point of criticism on the IGC's “mandate: - that relating to the United Kingdom's refusal to accept the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Some of the snivelling and moaning going on can't be taken seriously. Should one give up the Charter for all because one country does not agree? Let's be serious. One could even consider that the British 'no' contributes to bringing clarity to verify whether the United Kingdom (as Valéry Giscard d'Estaing puts it) refuses to pursue European integration. Rejection of the Charter is only an example - there are or will be others - concerning the justice sector, Community preference, or Common Agricultural Policy. The EU should get over this British ambivalence that has been going on for years. It is not holding anyone down, the new treaty acknowledges the right to “voluntary” withdrawal.
(F.R.)