Timely initiative. The European Parliament has taken the right step: it has become firmly involved in the on-going preparations for the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and has appointed a rapporteur of some stature in Jean-Luc Dehaene.
The complexity of the issue is well known. The number of questions, mainly institutional, to which answers have to be found so that the new treaty can operate efficiently from the moment it comes into effect, is huge, and these questions sometimes refer to politically sensitive points. From the start of the year, this column (in newsletters 9575, 9576 and 9577) has set out the most problematic areas: fixed Presidency of the Council; the composition of the Commission (expressing the opinion that the rules of the new treaty should be reviewed before they come into force, something that is legally possible); and how the future common foreign service will work. An overview of the decisions that will have to be taken or prepared, based largely on Commission proposals, before the end of the year, was published in our newsletter N° 9586, from a Slovenian Presidency “working note”. Most of the decisions are due for the second half of this year, under French Presidency. France is preparing for this, without tramping on the toes of the current Presidency, and its permanent representative in Brussels, Ambassador Pierre Sellal, who will chair the meetings of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the latter half of the year, made a detailed and exhaustive statement to the National Assembly (foreign affairs committee and European Union delegation); at the request of Pierre Lequiller (see our newsletter 9595).
Matters to be clarified. Ambassador Sellal stressed how discussions have necessarily to be confidential until the new treaty is ratified by all member states. In the meantime, the institutions are working “informally and unofficially”: they must give the impression that the ratifications, which must go through the national parliamentary process and, in at least one case, be put to referendum, are being taken for granted. Nonetheless, swift and efficient implementation of the new treaty has to be prepared. To the usual problems (role of the president of the European Council; articulation of his responsibilities with those of the Commission president, the rotating Council Presidency and the high representative for external relations; extent of European external relations service), he added structured cooperation in defence. It was pointless, in his view, to try to guess who might be an appropriate candidate for the Presidency of the European Council until there has been clarification of his/her role and functions: a chairperson, or a figure who embodies the legitimacy of the EU, both at home and abroad? I have quoted his speech since, like all parliamentary matters, it was open to the public.
Waiting for Dehaene. The European Parliament believes that respect for national ratification processes does not remove the need for in-depth preparatory work and the requirement that the EP be involved. Such important decisions must not be shrouded in diplomatic secrecy. It has decided to play an active role, beginning by appointing a rapporteur whose experience and frankness are known and who, as vice-president of the Convention, played a leading role in drawing up the Constitutional Treaty. In his comments to Agence EUROPE writer Helmut Brüls (our newsletter 9612), Mr Dehaene stressed in particular that: a) this work had to have a low profile so as not to give the impression that national ratifications were just a formality, although the EP could not stand apart: “at some stage there will have to be concertation between the three institutions” (EP, Council and Commission); b) the appointment of presidents of the European Council and Commission and that of the high representative will have to show “political and regional balance and balance between the big and small countries”, something that would be easier if they were appointed all together after the European elections; c) the treaty did not seek to create a president of Europe but a president of the European Council, which is not the same thing; d) it is the person who will make the post: the personality of those appointed “is as important as the arrangements in the treaty”. Mr Dehaene added that his report would be political, not technical, assessing the impact of the institutional innovations on the way the EU operates.
While the institutions are working or getting ready to work, analyses and stances are increasing and, in the media, suggestions as to who could be candidates for each of the posts are proliferating. Tomorrow this column will make some remarks on these suggestions and their significance.
(F.R.)