Those opposing Europe also have their place. A step is currently being made. The exercise in which the Europe election results are explained, is gradually giving way to forecasting what the fall-out from them will be. Most of the analyses point out that: - the EPP has strengthened its role as the main political force (despite the British Conservatives' departure); - the Socialists stay in second place but have been weakened; - the Liberals consolidate their position in third place;- the Greens have made significant headway and have increased their punching power and influence; - the Eurosceptics (namely the political forces that seek to weaken the European institutions in favour of the intergovernmental method) did not manage to assert themselves as they expected. A party that is in favour of its country leaving the EU obtained a certain success - UKIP, from the United Kingdom. I consider it positive that this position is highlighted and that citizens are aware that any country is allowed to leave the EU if it so wishes. The opponents of European construction, as they stand, from both the far Left and far Right remain marginalised but were, fortunately, able to take part. I say “fortunately”, because it is important to prove that they are given the freedom of speech like any other political party and are therefore denied the chance to play their preferred role of victims, oppressed by the powers-that-be and obliged to act in clandestine conditions.
I believe that it is encouraging that in these elections, the most important success was achieved by those who overtly supported the strengthening of the Community institutions and mechanisms, and who are determined to devote the mainstay of their political action to Europe rather than consider it as an adjunct to their national careers. I will cite, almost at random, Graham Watson, Michel Barnier, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and for certain aspects, Jean-Claude Juncker.
So far, attention is gradually shifting to forecasts on the effects of the elections and their repercussions on Community action. I will briefly look at two aspects of this question.
1. The presidency of the new European Commission. The calendar is going to be a full one: next week, the European Council will make a declaration, followed by Parliament a few weeks later. The EPP has already come out in favour of confirming Mr Barroso's new mandate (see our bulletin yesterday) and he himself has declared that he is willing to assume the role again (see the following pages). Misgivings and even opposition are quite legitimate but it appears difficult to contest the fact that the current president is the representative of the political tendencies prevailing at both the European Parliament and in most member states. If the people have mainly expressed support for the centre right, how can a presidency of the Commission that goes in the opposite direction be justified, which would be in permanent conflict with the European Council?
A number of heavyweights were being looked at (Guy Verhofstadt, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Mario Monti) but it should not be forgotten that the agreement at the European Council is as crucial as that from the European Parliament and that the balance provided by the Barroso presidency has been proved by the support he has received for his confirmation by several heads of government belonging to political forces outside the EPP. The Commission is not a government and as the representative of a majority, it has to base its action on the European interest. Its autonomy requires that it remain impartial to any overtures made by the political groups at the European Parliament. It is understandable that some of the positions taken during the election campaign were robust or even excessive. It is unthinkable that the views expressed by the majority of citizens are ignored, even by the presidency of the Commission.
2. Entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Prospects in Ireland are increasingly positive in two respects: the texts aimed at ameliorating concerns (unjustified as they were) expressed by Irish citizens, are almost ready, even if they still remain confidential; and the polls for the second referendum indicate a vote largely in favour of the treaty (EUROPE 9912).
Elmar Brok, however, startlingly introduced a new element into the reflection process by explaining that the main danger to the Lisbon Treaty did not come from Ireland, Poland or the Czech Republic but rather, from the United Kingdom (EUROPE 9909). The leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, effectively confirmed that if he gets into office before the Lisbon Treaty is in force, he will withdraw his country's endorsement of the treaty (decided by parliament) and organise a referendum. The result would more than likely be a “no” vote. This would be the end of the treaty, together with all the problems that this would create but it would also, perhaps, create perspectives for a new phase of European construction. (F.R./transl.rh)