Cicero's maxim. At the end of the week, Europe will be able to take a long hard look at its immediate future. The Irish will in effect have decided the fate of the Lisbon Treaty. If they vote 'yes', all the countries of the EU will have expressed their views freely, either directly or through their elected representatives, in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. Some of the attempts to change the way people view this fact are rather peculiar, if not downright anti-democratic. Take the case of the Czech Republic: the Czech parliament broadly approved the Lisbon Treaty and the polls all show that the Czechs themselves tend to favour the treaty, but the president of the Czech Republic is being obstructive and some political forces are trying to get the Constitutional Court involved again. These democratic deniers are making use of a convoluted legal manœuvre justified by one of Cicero's maxims: Summum jus, somma iniuria. To explain the background to the maxim - two warring Greek cities agreed to a 30-day ceasefire but at nightfall, one of the city's armies put the other city to the sword. It justified its action by pointing out that the agreement talked of a ceasefire lasting 30 'days' without mentioning the night-time. Using legal niceties can lead to legal injustice. Some of the talk about the validity of bringing the Lisbon Treaty into force seems to be inspired by the same reasoning.
The response has to be political. Just as pointless, in my view, is all the talk about what might happen if the Lisbon Treaty is blocked - well-informed but contradictory legal analysis dissecting what would have to be done to enable the countries that want greater integration to actually move in that direction. The rules have to be respected of course, but the response should be political first and foremost.
Countries in the EU that will not make do with mere intergovernmental cooperation will have to express their determination to act, just as happened in the past when the common market went beyond the initially planned free-trade zone, leaving the countries that didn't want to get involved to set up EFTA; it was the political will of a minority of countries that made it possible for the eurozone and the Schengen area to be designed and got up and running. No member state will be thrown out of the EU (unless they make it clear they want to leave), but the countries that want to move forward will between them find a way of doing so. Manoeuvres are being put in place to slow down the process of bringing the Lisbon Treaty into force, even if the Irish vote yes! It is time to prepare to deal with them.
Of course, the problem of the so-called “two-speed Europe” is very tricky. I have discussed this on several occasions, either pointing out the wisdom of moderate terminology introduced by Jacques Delors (the word “differentiation” to replace words that give the impression of different categories of member states being formed because each country is free to choose), or explaining how Belgium is already positioning itself in this connection, or explaining the options available under “strengthened cooperation” and similar mechanisms. In some areas, differentiation is demanded by countries themselves (Ireland when it comes to defence, the United Kingdom when it comes to the Schengen area, etc); in other areas, the objective situation makes it unavoidable - there are necessarily conditions attached to joining the euro although in some cases, like for Denmark and the United Kingdom, it is the country in question that decided not to join, not to mention Sweden, which is legally required to join but first has to hold a referendum to get the people to agree. The Chancellor of Germany has spoken out against the idea of strengthened cooperation, but this is more of a political gesture towards the countries of central and Eastern Europe than anything else.
An inevitable development? Some observers comment that it is inevitable, with one politician saying: “It seems to be time to look reality in the face - there will have to be a multi-speed Europe. There is no point beating about the bush. Countries that want a strong Europe have to go ahead. Sooner or later, the others will follow.” Some governments have made it clear that they will oppose any further enlargement of the EU until the Lisbon Treaty, or similar strengthened cooperation and qualified majority decision-making measures, comes into force.
Several initiatives are currently under discussion that would lead to a European Union with a stronger identity, sometimes to the detriment of automatic globalisation; I will be discussing these in my column. I view the preliminary legal niceties in which some of the debate is couched as going over the top. Hard political decisions will have to be made, under the Lisbon Treaty (if it comes into force in the near future) or by creating new mechanisms if the treaty does not come into force very soon. Either that, or one will have to resign oneself to European integration being eroded away almost imperceptibly, piece by piece.
(F.R./transl.fl)