Imagine the uproar that even a partially unsuccessful European Council would have provoked! Talk would have been about splits in the EU, divergences over the recovery plan, loss of European leadership on climate issues…On the eve of the summit and even on Friday morning, emphasis was on remaining disagreements rather than on the results achieved. It's a well-known rule: difficulties and failures attract readers and create sensationalist headlines. In addition to the reluctance to recognise the positive results of a political opponent, misgivings and commentaries full of reservations also ensue. This is quite normal and even preferable: triumphalism is never the correct attitude to adopt and encouragements to do better are always welcome because the summit's orientations do contain shortcomings and have to be put into practice. According to the lyrics of Louis Aragon, “Nothing is ever acquired by man and when he believes that he stretching out his arms, his shadow takes the shape of a cross”.
Let's look at the main points of what the European Council decided.
A. EU consolidates its role as guide in climate protection. The three essential goals remain, with the “triple 20%” that acquired an incontestable symbolic value. Some of the aggressive criticism appeared incapable of recognising the significance of democracy and how it worked.
In a democratic system, all components in society have the right to voice their arguments and for their arguments to be taken into consideration. After which, the political role is to define the common interest that should prevail over sectoral interests. It was quite normal for the ecologists, workers' unions, industry etc. to give their sometimes conflicting opinions and attempt to convince the public and authorities. No specific interest, however, can expect all of their demands to be agreed to. The European Parliament will now give its verdict in a first reading on the compromises it had discussed and negotiated at length with the other institutions. In Strasbourg, the majority obtained will logically prevail.
The amendments made last week by Heads of State and Governments mainly focus on the EU's internal financial solidarity and do not compromise the European model for making decisions and which are due to be negotiated next year at a world level. The European Council defined the provisions that will prevent member states, such as Hungary and Poland, suffering from excessive energy hikes that would lead to “socially unacceptable consequences”, one aspect that certain prophets of ecological orthodoxy all too easily ignore. Some demands against company relocations (preventing the disappearance in the EU of sectors such as cement, paper, steel, chemicals and glass) were taken into consideration, in favour of innovative and environmentally-friendly industrial practices and job creation (there was talk of a third industrial revolution).
B. Road map for Lisbon Treaty's entry into force. Next year the Irish people will freely decide on the fundamental issues rather than make choices based on misunderstandings or misplaced fears (see my previous column).
C. Improved and reinforced economic recovery plan. As its name suggests, a plan is just a plan and it is its implementation that counts. The first result ought to be the gradual re-establishment of a minimum of confidence. National aspects of the plan remain essential (this is inevitable because the Community budget has never been sufficiently adequate to allow it to be otherwise). In this regard, criticism of Germany for not fully playing its role was shown as being false and unfair; this column will return to this matter. National actions have to be coordinated and we can understand Jean-Claude Juncker's insisting that if this coordination is to be achieved, member states' economic policies should not be tied to the current crisis but become permanent.
At a Community level, the summit went beyond finance ministers' reservations on EU funding for 2008 and 2009. The orientation appears clear: funding evaluated at €5bn will not be returned to member states but used to finance the European dimension of the plan. Different interpretations among budget experts appeared on Monday but should be overcome without affecting the European Council's orientation
This recovery plan requires specific comment, which will be made tomorrow. It will also be appropriate to return to the institutional aspect of the Lisbon treaty provisions and other aspects in the European Council conclusions (defence, the Congo).
(F.R./trans/rh)