Three open questions” “

Luxembourg has “confirmed that its referendum for the ratification of the European Constitution will go ahead on 10 July”. News of the deadline is given by the premier of the Grand Duchy and current President of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker , who has urged the country’s electors to “support the process of European integration”. Luxembourg is a founder member of the European Community, together with France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Belgium. Juncker himself said that the fate of his government depended on the outcome of the vote, almost as if to reaffirm that the future of the tiny state is closely correlated with the great supranational project begun a half century ago. “EuropE IS NOT DEAD”. A week after the failed summit in Brussels (16-17 June), the Twenty-Five are trying to come to terms with normality in the EU. The meeting between the EU and the USA on 20 June enabled transatlantic relations to be reviewed and reaffirmed that “Europe is not dead”; on the contrary it remains “an essential force for the construction of democracy and freedom in the world”. While the European Parliament is meeting in the Belgian capital on 22-23 June, the work of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission is proceeding in tandem. Yet while life goes on as usual, the recent failures of the EU should not be underestimated: the failed referenda in France and Holland, the ballots postponed in other countries, the EU Council itself which has put the Constitution on hold and has confirmed that there is no agreement about the budget of the Union for the next six years. It was Juncker himself who spoke of “shame” at the end of the summit, and who explained to journalists that the EU “is in a profound crisis”. Juncker’s pessimism was reinforced after he had ascertained that, as far as the Financial Prospects 2007-2013 are concerned, any attempt at mediation had been in vain between France (a country with powerful agricultural interests, for which the Union spends 43% of its budget) and Great Britain (which has enjoyed for the last twenty years a hefty ‘rebate’ on its annual contributions to Brussels). Holland and Sweden for their part underlined the urgent need for a reduction in budgetary expenditures, while the Mediterranean countries and Ireland pressed for further investments for their own less developed regions; and the Eastern European countries insisted that without the aid of cohesion funds they will never draw close to the economic and social standards of the EU. AN EXTRAORDINARY SUMMIT? The conjunction between three great unresolved questions probably made their influence felt on the negative outcome of the summit. First, the need to proceed to the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty in the 25 member countries, and the fact that two founder states have already pronounced a decided “no”. Second, the definition of the common budget down to 2013: in a phase of economic recession, the EU has a need for greater funding to realize all EU policies and to include the new member states (the ten of 2004 plus Romania and Bulgaria); but in this phase, the coffers of the member states are increasingly empty. Third, the issue of enlargement has powerfully returned to the spotlight. French President JACQUES Chirac was the first to call for an “extraordinary summit” to “discuss how far Europe can be extended without running the risk of disintegrating” or losing its own identity. BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw offered a harsh but effective definition of the conflict registered in the Council: it was, he said, a conflict “between those who want a Europe able to tackle the future and those who wish to remain trapped in the past”. An analysis of the current impasse was also offered by the President of the Commission, the Portuguese José Manuel Durao Barroso, according to whom “there exists no plan B for the ratification of the Treaty” and it is impossible to define a budget by a trial of strength. “So it is necessary to proceed to Plan D, i.e. dialogue and debate”, said Barroso. The same expression had been used prior to the summit by the European Movement, which had called for a “Plan D, meaning D for democracy”. At the official level no leader wished to emphasise a particular “coincidence”: i.e. the fact that the deferment of the procedure for the ratification of the Constitution for six months corresponds to the duration of the British Presidency of the Union, which will be assumed by Tony Blair on 1st July. So the problems will return to the table during the Austrian Presidency, in the first half of 2006. OPPOSITE REACTIONS. After the summit, numerous European exponents commented on the results. “In moments of greatest difficulty, Europe has so far found in itself the resources necessary to overcome its deadlocks”, said René Van der Linden, president of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Less optimistic is John Monks, secretary of the European Trades-Union Confederation, who speaks of the “inability of the European Council to reach an agreement on the financial plans”, throwing Europe into a deep crisis: “an economic crisis in terms of the delays in implementing the Lisbon Strategy, but also a constitutional and now a budgetary crisis”. ———————————————————————————————————– Sir Europa (English) N.ro assoluto : 1398 N.ro relativo : 47 Data pubblicazione : 22/06/05