While Europeans' aspirations are not the same … The debate surrounding the date on which the Irish people will again be consulted on the Lisbon Treaty (see yesterday's column) raises a basic question: are current events not proving Guy Verhofstadt right? Let me explain.
The controversy, the hesitations and the differences accompanying plans for the relaunch of European unity demonstrate that Europeans do not all have the same aspirations. For some, the aim is integration (common policies, single currency, solidarity, strong supranational institutions), while others would prefer to see a free trade area with some rules and essentially intergovernmental management. Europe has for a long time been developing along uncertain lines, with controversial common policies, such as the CAP, a few achievements but not for all member states, such as the euro area and the Schengen area, and the abandonment of some objectives, such as symbols and majority decision-making. The former Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, believed that we had to go beyond compromises and partial achievements, and move towards a two-group Europe, with, in the first group, the countries which want an integrated Europe, and the second extending to those which want a Europe based on cooperation. Mr Verhofstadt's view received a lot of backing, but a more flexible system won the day. This was, to use Jacques Delors' term, differentiation, the happy compromise, the most significant example of which is the autonomous management of the euro by those countries which have adopted it as their currency.
Condition of the compromise. The Lisbon Treaty derives much from the Delors system, relaunching and setting out the idea of enhanced cooperation with the addition of permanent structured cooperation in the area of defence. Under current conditions, it is the best possible solution and it means unity can be preserved.
Given that the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty is compromised and challenged, does the radical option not become unavoidable, and with it, integration open to those countries which want it. The Lisbon format implies a reduction in the level of ambition from the outset. It is acceptable on condition that the innovations designated by common accord and deemed to be the very minimum level essential are effectively brought in. What is to be done, however, if a member state rejects even long-negotiated agreements which take account of the positions of each and to which all governments have subscribed?
Choosing and accepting the consequences. Everyone is free to choose. Being invited to make a choice does not mean judgment. The Swiss and Norwegians have elected to remain on the sidelines of the EU, and are no less esteemed for that. Their cooperation with the EU is growing and they accept the consequences of their choice. Among member states, those which asked not to be part of the euro area are, perfectly logically, not involved in its management. In my opinion, a right of withdrawal should be introduced and also a procedure for expelling those which do not abide by the rules. Common policies cannot be chopped up, with each choosing the bits it likes best. For example, any country which rejects the rules and procedures of the CAP should also refuse the funding and trade preferences, and so on.
Most member states consider that the Lisbon Treaty is essential. Without once again going through all that it will bring, two examples are there for all to see. The first is the significance of the permanent Presidency of the European Council. It was only through the luck of the rotation that European action on the Georgia-Russia conflict was so effective. Neither the previous Presidency, despite all its merits, nor the two forthcoming Presidencies could have achieved the same outcome. In future, only a permanent Presidency will be effective. Secondly, there is the legal possibility of a common energy policy, which does not exist today. If the new treaty comes into being so will this policy, and it is essential especially for those member states which depend on Russian energy or sources of energy which transit through Russia. There are many other examples that could be given.
Those who believe that a united Europe is inefficient, is wasteful of its resources, does not respect human rights and is guilty of a thousand other things should, logically, support a treaty which seeks to correct these faults, improve efficiency, enhance Europe's standing in the world. If someone does not agree, there is no reason to force him. Each can choose, and accept the consequences of this choice. Every member state will, at any rate, retain the rights it has acquired - apart from the one which allows it to block developments decided together. If this principle is not accepted, a two-speed Europe will surely become inevitable.
(F.R./transl.rt)