Imperfect but indispensable. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been signed, it would be better for Europe to put a stop to the polemic and regrets about its content. It is not the ideal treaty a lot of Europeans were dreaming about and in some respects it is a retreat compared to the Convention's draft constitution. But it exists - it is the result of difficult negotiations and is the best we can get in the current circumstances. It is in situations of this kind that we can distinguish between those who would like to progress with European unity and those who prefer the success of their own theses and ideas. Jacques Delors declared that in respect of the Convention's result, it was not the Europe about which he dreamt but affirmed that he supported it and called on support for it as a step towards a Europe without war or divisions - a Europe that expressed solidarity and unity and which was able to get its voice heard in the world. This principle is still valid.
For the moment, there are no alternatives: it's this treaty or nothing. From my point of view, those who call for it to be rejected are betraying the European idea. Everyone has the right to believe not to believe in Europe and to fight against it. Those who believe in it, despite everything, are permitted to criticise the different aspects of it and take action to change them. This is even desirable, but they should not reject what is in fact indispensable progress. I, myself, have a lot of criticism to make about the EU as it stands and I find certain apotheoses quite ridiculous, but the current priority is the relaunch which the Lisbon Treaty makes possible and which will facilitate future innovation.
Ratification has not been completed everywhere. Supporting this treaty is as necessary as the road towards its entry into force is difficult. Ratification has not been completed everywhere and implementation of the institutional reforms include a number of traps. What happened last Wednesday in Strasbourg during the European Parliament session was a little strange. The most fierce defenders of national autonomy among MEPs, who are fighting for an “intergovernmental” EU and who hate the supranational principle, are agitated (to the point of deserving to be called hooligans by their colleagues), particularly in order to demand referendums on the Lisbon Treaty throughout Europe. Ratification procedure is in fact a choice for each member state, in complete autonomy: this decision is national and should remain so. The “sovereignists”, who claim that the supra-national parliament, an example of what they are fighting against, is speaking against the autonomy of member states being able to decide the modalities of ratification, are short on logic and coherency. On this point they can defend their opinions as they so wish, with each of them in their own country, and not allow for European decisions in an area where national competency has been recognised. They claim to speak on behalf of the people of their countries: if this were true, the results of the national elections would have demonstrated it.
Any member state can express itself democratically on the Lisbon Treaty and will be able to reject it. They cannot, however, prevent the others from accepting it as it is. There is no obligation: certain member states already prefer not to participate in the single currency or in the scrapping of borders. “Differentiation” is a reality. Tomorrow, the instrument for “strengthened cooperation” will become easier, at least we hope so, and the Lisbon Treaty will even allow for member states to leave the EU if they want to. On Friday, the European Council will invite member states to swiftly ratify the treaty so that it enters into force on 1 January 2009. Officially, the hypothesis of a “no” vote is not being taken into consideration, that's logical. This possibility arising, however, should be given some thought, so one is not taken off guard. The decision of the British prime minister not to participate in the ceremony marking the signing of the treaty or in the official photographs is astonishing and provokes a number of concerns. Ratification procedures can still encounter surprises. We need to be prepared for them.
The second problem. Compounded with the uncertainties about ratification, the second problem linked to the Lisbon Treaty involves implementation of the institutional reforms it introduces. They raise a number of difficulties of application, already indicated by attentive analysts (this column looked at them at the beginning of the month in EUROPE 9556). Everything will need to be prepared in time so that the innovation decided on is put into practice in the right conditions. It is not the right time to re-open the debate on what should now be considered as having been accepted (even if some aspects provoke a number of worries). Now is the time to prepare for implementation. Let's look ahead. (F.R.)