Something to think about. Does Guy Verhofstadt think that the EU, which will soon be made up of more than 30 member states, will be able to achieve the integration of the objectives he recommends? Or does he see a two-speed development, with a group of countries determined to deepen their integration and another group, aiming more at reinforced inter-governmental cooperation? In his latest book (The Way Out Of the Crisis), he specifically referred to a formula of "two concentric circles: a political hardcore surrounded by an Organisation of European States" (our translation). He does not recommend this, but it is his belief that Community integration must move forward and that the institutions and countries which share this requirement must commit to it without delay. Those which do not agree would make a decision to remain on the sidelines; but the others should not have to scale down their ambitions.
A reality which exists. There is nothing new about this idea. It is behind the most spectacular advances in European history, from the single currency to the Schengen zone; it is explicitly provided for in several fields by the Treaty of Lisbon; Jacques Delors made it seem less dramatic by inventing the term differentiation; the Belgian government has let it be understood that it considers it likely. What, specifically, has Guy Verhofstadt brought to the party? The idea that it is up to the European Commission, and its president in particular, to take initiatives which may create progress in integration without having to wait for a prior consensus between the member states (see this section in bulletin no. 9945). At present, he has an institutional role (as president of the third largest political group of the Parliament) and is promoter of an alliance between the pro-European forces of the EP. Louis Michel recently said this about him: "He has an uncommon ability to convince and he has charisma. He could give the Parliament an extraordinary dimension of credibility. He is one of those people who could reinvent the European dream" (our translation).
But the same Louis Michel, a man with a great deal of political experience at both European and national levels, also warned against the dangers of rhetoric: "The danger of the Commission taking a highly offensive stance is that they could reduce the power of initiative to nothing more than gesticulation. And bring nothing back".
Mr Cohn-Bendit's "provocation". And then what? It is up to the Parliament itself to take a position on, amongst other things, the presidency of the Commission. Daniel Cohn-Bendit's latest brilliant idea was to urge the heads of state and government to appoint Mr Barroso stable president of the European Council, as they "like him so much" and as he gets on so well with them. It isn't always easy to interpret Mr Cohn-Bendit's initiatives, to work out which bit is the serious part and which bit sheer provocation. In this case, his principal objective is to block Barroso's candidacy for the European Commission; but it could also be that he is trying to scupper Tony Blair's chances of the Presidency of the European Council, a theory he denies. But this row over names is linked to the role of the new function: a president of the EU, as it is often defined by the media, or just somebody to organise the work of the European Council?
A link exists. The link between the various appointments expected, some of which are dependent upon the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, should not be overlooked. The remaining uncertainty over this point calls for a great deal of tact and sense of responsibility, regarding not only the stages in the process which remain to be completed (there are several elements to justify optimism as regards the referendum in Ireland, but to announce the result is a done deal would be a political and psychological error which could change the minds of the citizens called upon to vote), but also the aspects to be clarified, such as the significance and repercussions of the ruling of the German Constitutional Court (which are not to be taken lightly). In this situation, should a link between the various appointments be considered preferable, or an immediate and separate decision on the president of the European Commission? The Swedish Presidency of the Council is pushing for the latter, because it wants alongside it during its six months at the helm a figure who is certain of stability and who has obtained in advance the support not only of the European Council, but also of the Parliament. It is, however, practically impossible not to speak in the same breath of the appointment of the other Commissioners and their portfolios, and most of all of the two people who will change the institutional functioning of the EU: the above-mentioned stable president of the European Council and his or her prerogatives and, even more so, the European foreign minister (even if this exact title has become lost along the way) who will also be the permanent president of the "External Relations" Council and vice-president of the Commission.
It is clear that this year's summer break will be anything but a break from diplomatic and parliamentary activity.
(F.R./transl.fl)