Recent dramatic events have heightened the need for the Lisbon Treaty to enter into force as soon as possible as it would give the EU the essential instruments for overcoming difficulties and facing up to future developments. Two urgent aspects have already been discussed in this column:
a) The permanent presidency of the European Council. Rapid, effective EU action with regard to the events in Georgia has been possible as the president-in-office was able to meet the Russian officials without losing any time, to make himself heard and to put across a forceful, visible European stance. A presidency without the same talents would not have been able to reap the same results. I believe I was the first to underline this (in the same column in bulletin No 9729), before being followed by a number of MEPs, while the institutions as such logically avoid mentioning this aspect. First signs of what the next presidency has in mind are not encouraging for a vigorous and ambitious European course of action in political matters (see our bulletin No 9734 for information on the objectives of the Czech Presidency).
It is therefore urgent for the EU to have a stable president of the European Council, either with real, extended powers or empowered to entrust specific missions to chosen members of the summit, as circumstances warrant.
b) Possibility of a European energy policy. The legal opening of the Lisbon Treaty in this field was summarised in this column at the end of last week (bulletin No 9734).
One could go on to speak about the other assets of the new treaty regarding strengthened democratisation, the Union's management efficiency, progress on defence, the recognition of services of general economic interest, etc. But the two above-mentioned examples are enough to show that, under the current circumstances, Europe needs the Lisbon Treaty. Such an observation contains no element of criticism towards those who do not want the Treaty and who prefer an EU that is less integrated and less ambitious. In a democracy, people's choices, whatever they may be, must be acknowledged and accepted for what they are - but those who reject progress should not stand in the way of the others. A Europe that wishes to move forward cannot wait too long for those lagging behind and the sceptics to give their approval.
Ireland must choose. I have the feeling that there are growing numbers of people who consider the time for choosing is nigh. Pat Cox of Ireland, the former president of the European Parliament, has noted in The Irish Times of 26 August that the previous cases (Maastricht and Nice Treaties) show that, if almost all member states express a clear consensus for moving forward, then those reluctant must adjust to the majority position. Speaking of his country while denouncing the financing that was not only lacking in transparency but was also of an unprecedented scale for the “no” campaign, and of the growing incursion by the press and other British media, Mr Cox affirms that there is no other way out other than to hold another referendum on the same treaty which was rejected, together with an opt-out and interpretative statements. The Irish foreign minister, Dick Roche, has reached the same conclusion. This is an opinion largely shared in the EU, although more radical positions also exist. According to Mario Monti, the Irish have already explicitly stated what they want, and there is no point inviting them to a repeat performance of a referendum. They should, he says, be asked whether or not they wish to remain in the EU. As far as he sees it, there is nothing dramatic about a country pulling out: the EU is not a prison.
Difficulties and perplexities. Pressure on Ireland would, however, be less effective if, at the time of the European Council in October, when the Irish government is to state its intentions, the Lisbon Treaty has not been ratified by all the other member states. There are doubts about Poland (the parliament has completed ratification but the president does not plan to sign until the Irish case has been clarified) and the Czech Republic. The Dublin tendency would be to admit that no changes to the text of the treaty itself are possible (this would involve further ratification in all other member states), and to be content with the declarations and political commitments indicated in our bulletin No 9714 - but all in good time: the new referendum is said to be scheduled for autumn 2009, pushing forward the entry into force of the new treaty to autumn 2010.
This timetable causes perplexity in other capitals, which believe the treaty should take effect as a matter of urgency. The situation is a complex one and the solution is not always clear. (F.R./transl.jl)