Ireland: timely warning. The European institutions are now actively preparing the decisions that will enable the EU to improve how it functions and begin its work again, thanks, notably, to the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty remains tied to the results of the Irish referendum in three weeks' time. The media recently carried out a survey in which predictions for an Irish “yes” vote had gone down but were still significantly higher than those indicating a “no” vote. I think this warning is appropriate because over-confidence in winning a vote in favour could lead to less motivation from those convinced of the need for their country to remain firmly and definitively anchored to the European Union. There was even a large majority of citizens in favour of this anchorage at the time of the first referendum and all the analyses proved it. The “no” vote prevailed (by 54,905 votes) because of the misunderstandings and lies, which were then clarified. In the few days of the election campaign that still remain, Irish citizens ought to be informed of the fact that opportunities for further clarification are over. The EU does not have any alternative formulas available and if the Lisbon Treaty were to be buried, the formula of a “hard core” would undoubtedly be relaunched: some member states would take the initiative to move forward on their own towards integration and others would remain on the sidelines.
Ireland, a country that once again discovered to what extent Community solidarity was indispensable to it during the financial crisis, would find itself among the latter countries. I believe, however, that the alarm bells sounded during the most recent survey will definitely be beneficial and that the referendum result will be largely positive.
Institutional innovations. The ferment of initiative we have witnessed since the beginning of this month is therefore based on the hypothesis of the Lisbon Treaty entering into force at the beginning of next year. Institutional innovations will logically be the first to be introduced because it will be up to the strengthened and readapted institutions to subsequently and gradually implement the common and deepened policies and other innovations. The Swedish Presidency of the Council has announced that it intends to involve the European Parliament in the nomination of the future stable presidency of the European Council, as well as of the new high representative for foreign and security policy, and to prepare the structure for the future European diplomatic corps immediately after the Irish referendum (EUROPE 9967).
Mr Cohn Bendit's trips up. For the time being, attention is focused on the nomination of the future president of the European Commission. A swift decision is appropriate and too bad if it has to be taken on the basis of the Treaty of Nice, which still remains in force. I believe that Daniel Cohn Bendit is mistaken when he attempts to oppose a swift decision being taken and when he affirms that it is absurd and even illegal to nominate the president under the conditions of the Treaty of Nice and the rest of the Commission under the conditions of the new treaty. He is mistaken because the Lisbon Treaty will, in any case, not enter into force immediately after the Irish referendum but by January 2010 at the earliest. It will therefore be necessary to wait until next year to form the new Commission, which would have a very harmful impact on the effective functioning of the EU in the next few months (several commissioners have already resigned and others are preparing to do so).
Mr Barroso explains that…It is therefore necessary to move forward. Hearings of the president, unanimously nominated by the heads of state and governments, are taking place and apart from the Greens, they are not open to the public. Our readers will, nevertheless, find all the useful information they need, as usual, in our publication, on the positions taken by the different groups and MEPs. Mr Barroso continues to provide more indications and explanations regarding his programme. During the debate organised by the Centre for European Studies on Monday, following the hearing summarised in our publication yesterday, he responded to participants' questions and expressed himself at length on two specific points:
a) Community budget. According to Onno Ruding, the former Dutch minister for finance, if EU spending increases in certain sectors it will have to decrease in others because several member states are opposed to an overall increase. Mr Barroso refused to talk about the figures but did expalin that they first of all had to define the objectives and then see what the appropriate funding should be to attain them.
b) Importance of the stable presidency of the summit. The half-yearly rotation is damaging. Mr Putin has already had four presidents to deal with and it will be the same for Mr Obama. Mr Barroso indicated that he had noticed that the presidents of the European Council had not always delivered the same message to their interlocutors. The stable presidency is necessary in order to prevent any embarrassing situation arising. (F.R./transl.rh)