After the exhaustive summary (which I believe was the only one in the international press) published in our previous bulletin, the results of the European Council call for two comments on a few specific aspects. Here is the first. The second, on the few disturbing truths, will be for tomorrow.
1. The Irish people will decide on their country's place in the EU. The Prime Minister Brian Cowen made this quite clear: in practice, in second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, the Irish people will decide whether they wish to remain in an EU which intends to move towards ever closer unity, or remain on the sidelines. He has no doubts about this, personally: "Ireland's place is in the heart of the European Union and that is where we wish to remain".
This attitude should apply to all of the Member States: when a country has taken part in negotiations which have extended over several years and concluded with compromises shaped by all and accepted by all, it must choose its place. The people of course have the right to reject the result, either by referendum or by voting in a parliamentary majority, and therefore a government, which is opposed to the plan in question; but it has no right to hold back the others. It may position itself on the sidelines of the innovations and integration (as a number of countries have done regarding the single currency, or the removal of border controls, or any other aspect of integration), or leave the Union altogether.
2. Presidency of the Commission: political groups' differences of opinion regarding the timetable confirmed. The European Council was quite clear: "the Heads of State and Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr José Manuel Barroso as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission" (paragraph 6 of the conclusions). The President of the European Parliament said that "the political family whose numerical superiority was confirmed in the elections has the right to provide the new President". However, he acknowledged that opinions differ on the date for the confirmation of the President of the Commission: the presidents of the political groups take position on 9 July. This makes the gulf between the political groups official. Some groups believe that the procedure should be started under the Treaty of Nice, without waiting Treaty of Lisbon to enter into force; others take the view that it makes no sense for two different Treaties to be applied to one procedure, with one to choose the President and the other to appoint the Commission as a whole. The arguments forwarded by Mr Cohn-Bendit in favour of a Parliamentary debate beforehand, in order to allow a name to emerge (see our bulletin 9922), have one weak point: in order to demonstrate that the new Parliament has neither a centre-right nor a centre-left majority, he has put the Liberal group among the centre-Leftists; this group has actually said that it is open to compromise with the centre-right if its requests are taken into consideration. And even the Socialists have not ruled out an agreement with the EPP, subject to certain conditions; they believe that Mr Cohn-Bendit has gone too far with his statements and predictions ("you don't lead the Parliament with 7% of its members", said Martin Schulz).
In fact, developments are much less certain than some predictions would have you believe.
3. European surveillance of financial activities is taking shape. The Summit failed to iron out all differences of opinion over the European Commission's plans for supervising the behaviour of the players in the world of finance, but the compromise between Germany, France and the United Kingdom over a number of essential aspects allowed sufficient progress for the Commission to be able to present legal application texts in the autumn. Some of the Member States would have liked the European supranational powers to be tougher, and Jean-Claude Juncker observed scathingly that as the lion's share was decided by just three, the Summit could be no more ambitious than the most powerful Member States. Even so, the observers recognize that the system which is taking shape represents extraordinary progress given the situation which led to the havoc we are seeing now; and European Parliament will get to have its say over the final result.
4. Security of energy supply. Paragraph 35 of the conclusions expresses the concern of the European Council over potential problems concerning gas supply from Russia via Ukraine, and Mr Barroso explained to the press that no budgetary intervention on the part of the EU is possible. However, technical discussions are continuing and intensifying at the appropriate levels. This was not a dossier which lent itself to discussions at the Summit. This column will return to it in the appropriate context.
It will do so tomorrow, on those disturbing truths. (F.R./trans.fl)