Reflection to look forward to? The smooth running of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is among the priorities of the Slovenian presidency of the Council, so that the treaty can effectively come into force at the start of 2009 (see the column in yesterday's edition). Clearly, on this matter, the presidency's role is one of encouragement, including by setting the example (which Slovenia intends to do in the first few months of the year). Ratification, however, must remain in the forefront of leaders' minds, because the future of European integration depends on it. It would be very difficult indeed for the EU to resist a second failure in its institutional reform, which is essential if it is to operate effectively given its size now. In the event of failure, the EU would have to react immediately, accepting the verdict but, at the same time, relaunching the new treaty among those member states which are inclined to accept it, without beginning further negotiation in search of a consensus, which could never be found.
Speaking about it is not seeking to be provocative. Jacques Delors and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing have already done so, barely concealed in a jointly signed text putting forward the suggestion that the new treaty could be adopted by majority decision. Guy Verhofstadt does not hide his belief that the division of the EU in two parts is inevitable, with an increasingly integrated central core of willing states. Quite rightly, the institutions are not giving formal consideration to the possibility that some member states do not ratify the treaty, though the facts demonstrate that reflection is taking place.
Within the European Parliament, the ultra-nationalist extreme right and the extreme left, which cannot accept its poor electoral performances, have come together to challenge (violently and undemocratically) the right of each member state to determine its ratification procedure. The choice of this procedure is clearly a matter reserved to national governments; neither the EU in general nor the EP in particular has any right to intervene. The two extremes are never embarrassed by the coalitions that unite them. In this instance, as Jean-Pierre Audy noted, “they are in the wrong Chamber”; it is in the national parliaments that they should be performing their acts of bravado.
Some developments. It is national campaigns and national votes that will decide on ratification. In most states, the “yes” vote seems to be certain. In Hungary, parliament has already come out in favour by an overwhelming majority. In France, those on the left who support rejection explain their stance by the new treaty's shortcomings on the principle of free competition and the services of general interest. Yet it is precisely in economic matters that the Lisbon Treaty has brought in the most important innovations. There is no logic in the extreme left's position, because rejecting the treaty would mean keeping in place the current treaties, which include competition among the EU's principles and do not allow any exemption from competition rules for public services (the new treaty generally allows such exemptions). Similarly, the French extreme right rejects the new treaty, because it believes it increases the supranational character of the EU. The result is a new coalition of the two extremes (supported by a section of the university and intellectual worlds). Of course, the new treaty cannot fully satisfy everyone, but the progress it will bring is more than enough to justify the support of democratic political forces.
Elsewhere, particularly in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe, public opinion seems to be moving towards better understanding of the significance and ambitions of European integration. This is most clear in Poland, where the new prime minister has stated that his country will adopt the euro as quickly as possible, and that Poland is already thinking about its turn to hold the presidency in 2011, which will crown its European ambitions. In Denmark, the prime minister has announced his intention to call on the people to vote, through one or more than one referendums, on the country's opt-outs from certain Community projects (including the single currency). He would not have made such an announcement if he had not noted a shift in public opinion. This is true to some degree in other Nordic countries.
However, no change is noticeable in the United Kingdom, where opinion polls confirm the hostility to European integration, while at the same time some political leaders seem to be shifting the emphasis of some traditional British positions. I will return to this in detail tomorrow.
(F.R.)