Once again, the European Council did not resist the temptation to transform its “conclusions” into a summary of all the EU had done and intended to do. This is a useful exercise for historians and the authorities in charge of putting the orientations retained into practice but not a useful exercise at all for the public. Which Head of government really read all the texts he was agreeing to? They are the fruit of lengthy negotiations between diplomats and sometimes ministers and experts in an effort to make them acceptable to all. The obligatory unanimous agreement is paid for through a banalisation. One member state did not want tourism to be forgotten, another spoke of the importance of a viable transport system, a third about the Commission's communication on Maritime Policy; everything was mentioned. Sometimes the conclusions are restricted to summarising the Commission documents or the results of a sectoral council.
Observations that proceded do not mean that these texts had no weight. Sometimes their importance appears later, when the words of a summit become sacred in terms of mandates to respect and the gradual implementation of distant objectives. I think that four aspects require a few specific remarks.
1. Lisbon Treaty. A double deadline is indicated: entry into force of the new treaty at the beginning of 2009; requires that the institutional innovations explicitly require implementation at the same time and the preparatory work beginning next month. An unexpected precision can be added to this: this treaty gives the Union a stable institutional framework which is part of the length of time paragraph 6). The first draft mentioned institutional reform as a framework for the near future by conferring longer term challenges to the Reflection Group. The following point is linked to this.
2. Reflection group. Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in getting this body set up. The summit, however concocted a mandate for “the wise” (a term used by the French president) which removes any chance of having any concrete influence on the future of the Union. Judge for yourselves: this group will not be able to tackle the institutional framework, the next financial perspectives (namely, whether the Union's resources are sufficient), common policies (therefore, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy) or the question of Europe's borders. The last aspect should have represented, according to France, the central point in this reflection exercise, with a regard directed towards Turkey; it disappeared (although Mr Sarkozy, with the support of Ms Merkel, pointed out that “neighbourhood policy” is part of the reflection framework).
It will be up to the nine wise men to reflect over two and a half years upon questions of doctrine and urgency in the political calendar: reconciling economic success with social solidarity, defining immigration policy, fighting terrorism, protecting the climate, better communication with citizens. We are entitled to a few concerns about the effectiveness of this, in a report on these subjects in June 2010.
3. Financial markets. The paragraph in the conclusions on this burning question contains two predictable words: transparency (to be introduced) and monitoring (to be strengthened). The list of aspects where this double exercise is required is included in the text: assessment standards, risk management, role of notation agencies, etc. Logically, the summit has not indicated any orientation on the aspects on which positions of member states diverge, as clearly revealed in the debates at the Economy/Finance Council. The European Council has set a meeting at the Spring Summit to discuss the matter. Until then, ministers will have striven to clarify what initiatives should be taken. This is a very controversial subject to which I will return at the beginning of next week.
4. Globalisation. The declaration annexed to the conclusions represents a high voltage exercise, which strives to reconcile the opening up of Europe to the world (priority for some member states) with the demand for international rules guaranteeing fair trade (a preliminary condition for the others). The text lists the different demands: to take into consideration all the interests of all Europeans (not only one or other category), to strengthen international organisation (not only the WTO but also those responsible for social protection, product safety and the environment). Getting rid of trade barriers is mentioned at the same time as the demand for decent working conditions, respect for intellectual property rights and the integration of immigrants. Finding a balance between the order and priority of these demands still needs to be found. (F.R.)