Crazy idea. In my opinion, the creation of a European “No to the Lisbon Treaty” network is, from the European point of view, the most crazy and irrational type of initiative one could imagine. It could be understood if it had come from the political forces staunchly opposed to unity in Europe - their position is clear and totally legitimate. But the people behind the idea of setting up a No cartel (see my column in issue 9761), say they are in favour of the European project, but want a different Europe from the existing one and the one the Lisbon Treaty would establish. I prefer an attitude of total rejection to a hypocritical attitude of trying to get people to believe that one is in favour of Europe when in fact one rejects any progress. My views are justified by the most spectacular recent changes, as I outline below.
Coincidences in timing that will not be repeated. Everyone everywhere has welcomed the outcome of Europe's action in the two global tragedies of the past six months - the Russia-Georgia conflict and the financial crisis. Both in Europe and elsewhere, it has been recognised that it was the EU, acting as a unit, that made it possible to immediately end a war and find an effective way of dealing with the collapse of the banking system. Nothing of the kind will be possible in 2009 if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified.
As for Georgia, I pointed out in my column in August (see issue 9729), when nobody else was talking about it, and again on 10 September (issue 9736), that only the coincidences in timing of the rotating presidencies of the European Council made it possible for the EU to rapidly intervene so effectively. Immediately organising a meeting in Moscow between the president of the European Council, the president of the European Commission, the EU high representative for foreign policy, Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Medvedev, six point plan, etc Nicolas Sarkozy was able to arrange immediate talks with the Russian leaders and have his views listened to - nothing of the type would have been possible two months earlier or several months later.
A similar situation panned out with the financial crisis: one meeting after another between European G8 members, the eurozone countries, a meeting with the American President, and so on. How could these key events have been convened by a country that was not part of the G8 or had not joined the euro?
The following countries will hold the presidency of the European Council if the Lisbon Treaty does not come into force: the Czech Republic, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania and Greece. This takes us to the first six months of 2014. These are all highly respectable countries, some of which are in the avant-garde of the European project and perfectly capable of chairing EU councils (often better than big countries because of their ability to compromise and mediate), but with less visibility and arguments to get their views across at the very highest global level, and to show the way where required. Only the Lisbon Treaty's institutional innovations can change this - a stable president of the European Council and the vice-president of the Commission chairing the External Relations Council. The existing stability and well-known outcome of the chairing of the Eurogroup by Jean-Claude Juncker would be extended to other crucial positions and the EU would gain in effectiveness and visibility.
Playing the European card. It should also be borne in mind that the current president of the European Council, Nicolas Sarkozy, has made the most of the European card by playing it to the full in the above-mentioned crises and elsewhere. He always arranged for the president of the Commission to accompany him, along with the high representative for “foreign policy” where appropriate or the president of the Eurogroup. Sarkozy's position as President of France made it easier for him to organise such moves (the same would apply to the Chancellor of Germany, for example) but he understood that the outcomes were made possible at the end of the day by the fact that he was speaking on behalf of the EU and its political, economic and historical power.
Without the Lisbon Treaty, this would disappear. And similar arguments apply to issues like energy (a common policy would become possible), defence (among consenting member states) and more. When we consider the wrong, petty or egotistical motivations that drove the majority of the Irish to vote against...
The motivations of the people in the “no” coalition are not much better. By strengthening the democratic aspect and the role of the European Parliament, the Lisbon Treaty would allow everyone to fight for their ideas and their political views and have the option of ensuring they win out if voters agree to follow them. Anyone who believes in democracy and in Europe cannot fail to support the “yes” camp.
(F.R./transl.fl)
European Parliament Plenary Session