The way ahead for overcoming the difficulties resulting from the Irish referendum is gradually becoming more visible. Member states, with two exceptions, are proving in practice that they intend to apply the European Council line asserting that the Lisbon Treaty is not dead and ratification continues. This is logical because the conclusions at the summit were unanimous. It should be emphasised that misgivings are not being voiced from heads of government that approved these conclusions but from two presidents who are balking at the prospect of signing the act of ratification. In practice, Lech Kaczynski and Vaclav Klaus are opposing the direction sought by their own countries' governments.
Poland: a domestic issue. The two situations are not comparable. Everything would suggest that in Poland, the attitude adopted by the president of the Republic stems from domestic politics. This column never comments on member states' domestic questions but I will quote the Belgian secretary of state for European affairs, Olivier Chastel, who after having met his Polish counterpart, declared: “No other problem exists for ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. President Kaczynski used the occasion to distinguish himself from the government on domestic policy. I was led to believe that his attitude is partly influenced by the next presidential elections and the difficulties he has in staying the course. A draft law will soon be voted on to define the president's competencies compared to those of the prime minister on European affairs”. Mr Kaczynski also explained that all they needed to do was sort out the Irish question and the Polish problem would be resolved. At the same time, figures close to Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of the European Council, point out that Kaczynski has signed the Lisbon Treaty and they did not know how he could now question his signature and subsequently challenge both the will of Parliament and the very clear direction sought by the general public. These same sources also indicate that Poland wants the EU to open up to Ukraine and Georgia and we know that without the Lisbon Treaty, no further enlargement after Croatia will be possible.
Open opposition to Czech president. The Czech situation is different, because the president of the Republic, Vaclav Klaus, openly declared his opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU moving in the direction of the treaty. In his opinion, the opposite is required: a return to the explicitly intergovernmental concept of European construction. It is quite normal that Mr Klaus has his opinions and that he asserts them, but it is up to the Czech people to decide the democratic path and orientation of his country. His choice will be respected, given that other countries will be just as free to decide otherwise. The Czech Republic will preside over the next Council of Ministers and European Council. This will be a strange presidency if it opposes a unanimously approved treaty, which it has approved itself.
Legal caution in Germany. Any examination of the different misgivings expressed would be incomplete if it did not look at Germany. It was even the president of Germany who slowed down the final Lisbon Treaty ratification phase by delaying the signing of it, even after the very large majority gained in the two chambers of Parliament. Horst Köhler is awaiting the Constitutional Court's decision, as demanded by an ex-Communist party (which has had no mass impact at all) and a dissident parliamentarian from the Bavarian CSU. Köhler's legal arguments are undoubtedly valid, how could there be any doubt about it? The unfortunate thing is that the Constitutional Court won't make its decision until next year. Europe has to wait. The German press itself stresses that Mr Köhler has never been elected: he was an exemplary career civil servant, secretary of state and even international leader (at the IMF) but he has never contested an election. This consideration has no legal weight at all; it is Germany itself which has to assess the political implications and find a solution. Which one? A change in the attitude of the president of the Republic? An earlier verdict from the Constitutional Court? It is already thought that the Court will overtly state that European policy falls within the remit of the legislative and executive bodies. Is there no possibility of avoiding this disrupting delay? It is true that in Belgium, as well, procedures are not yet over. Out of the seven or eight chambers of government that have to decide, one has still failed to do so.
Given this situation, it comes as little surprise that there is hesitation, prevarication, and fears from member states who believe, however, that it is indispensable to apply what has commonly been agreed after years of detailed negotiations. We almost get the impression that nobody is daring to say what the consequences of a “no” vote would be on the people who wanted it. This column will return to this subject tomorrow. (F.R./transl.rh)