Respecting democratic choices throughout the EU. Now that the people of Ireland have had their say, let us look to the future. Their decision, which was so clearly and so eloquently expressed, must be acknowledged and respected by all, including critics of the Lisbon Treaty. According to a number of political forces, the double referendum is an anti-democratic procedure. But do people not have the right to develop and move on? Should the Norwegians lose the right to join the EU because they voted against it once upon a time? Did not the British once reject even the very idea of accession, before going on to request it insistently and doggedly? The right to take position a second time is particularly logical in the case of the Irish, as they have finally had the clarifications and explanations they wanted on the actual content of the Lisbon Treaty, which had previously been grossly misrepresented to them, without adequate answers.
It is true that the adoption procedures for this treaty have not been fully completed. But it is nonetheless interesting to note that in the two member states which are lagging behind the others, the institutions which personify democracy - in other words the freely-elected parliament and the government it gave rise to - have already spoken clearly, whilst it is the two presidents who are being obstructionist, artificially delaying their symbolic signature.
Preparing for institutional reforms without delay. Whilst we wait for these democratically-made decisions to be respected, what is the significance of the words "let us look to the future"? The first step consists of preparing for the institutional reforms brought about by the entry into force of the new treaty. Politically, these are highly significant and complex enough for the competent authorities already to have pencilled in an extremely tight timetable:
a) appointment of the new European commissioners by the European Council of 29 and 30 October, so that their hearings before the Parliament can start in November and the votes of appointment can take place in December, under the proceedings of the Treaty of Nice (in other words with a maximum of 26 commissioners), thus allowing the Commission to start work on the reforms of its powers, whilst waiting for the last commissioner, who will have the triple role enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, to be appointed;
b) appointment, on the same day, of the candidates to the two posts which represent the major institutional revolution in the treaty, i.e. the stable president of the European Council and the commissioner who will take on the triple role of vice-president of the Commission/high representative for the CFSP and ESDP/permanent president of the "External Relations" Council.
Roles to be clarified. The two appointments have nothing to do with personal or national ambitions or rivalries. These elements will, naturally, have a part to play, but the choices to be made involve a profound and sustainable transformation of the functioning of the European Union. Not only the names, but the very responsibilities, will be up for discussion. Will the stable president of the European Council be more or less a "chairman", responsible for organising summit meetings and putting together the agenda, or will he or she be a "president of Europe", who will represent it and speak in its name? And will the triple function, so audaciously created on paper, be a forerunner to a future European foreign minister, or just someone to prepare the debates between national ministers? And how will relations between these two figures be defined and clarified?
The relaunch of talks on the creation of a common diplomatic service (which would bring together the civil servants of the Commission and the Council with national diplomats) has already generated a number of responses, because a new European service (to which a great many observers have allocated great significance) should be aware of its duties and know who is leading it. Reflections on this subject have far exceeded the bureaucratic issues, because it necessarily involves orientations on its future existence, on the significance and content of European foreign policy, which cannot come into being overnight, but which will, when the time comes, be the (potential, because nothing can be taken for granted) result of a gradual process, which must by necessity start slowly. Undue haste and impatience would be inappropriate in this.
This column will return to this issue, and to the other vital aspects of the essential innovations arising from the Lisbon Treaty and developments underway in the member states during this preparatory phase, including developments in Poland in favour of European defence.
(F.R./transl.fl)