Subterfuges lacking glory. It was expected: the path chosen by the princes that govern us to tackle the disturbances provoked by the "no" from the Irish people to the Treaty of Nice lacks political courage and imagination. It consists of saying: lets do nothing and wait for Ireland to find a legal solution that would allow for the ratification of the Treaty. These subterfuges are in no way glorious and obviously leave themselves open to mockery from the Eurosceptics. Everywhere, they proclaim the desire to make Europe more democratic and to bring the people together, and once a nation speaks out, the reaction is: it is not valid, let's try again.

The justification of this somersault by Romano Prodi was not convincing. In his opinion, the Irish people did not speak out on the Treaty of Nice, but on issues, which do not concern this Treaty: the security/defence dimension of the EU, the interference of Brussels in the national economic policy, the future of regional funds. Though it is precisely for this reason that last week's referendum must be taken seriously! In the great debate over the future of Europe, here is a people that clearly says what it wants and does not want, and we gag its voice because it is displeasing. While the ideal solution would precisely be that all the people speak out with such clarity, to know where we are heading and with whom.

The path of mending requires a continuous reduction in aims, in order to achieve a false unanimity. The European Commission feels that its main duty is to safeguard the EU's unity. The Heads of Government are too immersed in their role to hurt one of their colleagues over something vital. The European Parliament does not want to divide itself into two parties. Thus, the battle occurs around what matters least (the Treaty of Nice), by evading what is vital: the aims and ambitions.

The path of clarity. There remains a hope: the next Belgian Presidency. Guy Verhofstadt understood the stake and seems decided to lead the European Council down the road of clarity, a road on which none are arguing at present. Before the European Parliament's Liberal group, the Belgian Prime Minister asserted that the "Laeken declaration", which he will submit in December to his colleague Heads of Government, will aim to provide the Union with a vision, an agenda, a method and a timetable that should allow to concretise the "vision" over the next ten years. What vision? That of a Europe which completes the Economic and Monetary Union with a social Europe and a political Europe and builds a common European defence. Will they allow him to present a text in this direction, in Laeken? Will the European Commission dare propose a draft along these lines, to the risk of having to deliberate by majority?

Let the Belgian Presidency act. We will see. The Belgian Presidency will do its duty, if we let it act. It is not only the stances of the Prime Minister that reassure. Belgium has also organised a round of "seminars" in preparation for the next six months. Chaired by the former Belgian Permanent Representative to the EU, Philippe de Schoutheete, these seminars have reviewed the major themes of the next six months (enlargement, institutional reform, immigration and asylum, social policy, tax policy, etc.). I have had the opportunity to take part in the last one, and I was able to see that different Belgian Ministers (who will chair the Council sessions, as of next month) are motivated and prepared, even on technical dossiers such as the relationship, in the social field, between binding legislation and "open coordination", or between harmonisation and coordination in the field of taxation. The seminars have proven that it is possible to interest a wider audience, especially youths, in European issues, if the talks are lead in a concrete manner by competent people. Though in the closing session a phrase by Philippe de Schoutheete made me twitch: he said that some would like for the Laeken declaration only to concern procedure. Filibustering, already?

Mr Bourlanges was right, but… Let us return to the reactions to the Irish referendum. Once more, Jean-Louis Bourlanges was the most brilliant. He stated: trying to reorganise the Treaty of Nice to make it acceptable to Irish public opinion would obviously stem from therapeutic determination. The Treaty of Nice is dead before having lived. This is good news. He did not have to work to welcome the Irish "no", as from the outset he was against the ratification of this Treaty. However, Mr Bourlanges neglects a fundamental point, well understood by another European parliamentarian, Monica Frassoni: the fact that "sadly, most of the motivations of the negative Irish vote are anti-European in tendency. The fate made by the Irish to the Treaty of Nice gives reason to Mr Bourlanges, but should not make him forget that the attitude of Ireland does not move in the direction of the future developments he favours; these developments only seem, now, to be possible without Ireland (and a few other countries). (F.R.)