front page" "
These are days laden with tension in Brussels and Strasbourg. The terrorist attacks in London are added as a lacerating reminder of the terrible enemy of peace. The European Union is in a state of disarray; everyone, in words, is calling for a change in direction, a revival, but for the time being no definite and viable ways out of the impasse can be glimpsed. The rejections of the European Constitution expressed by the referenda in France and Holland have been followed by the failed summit of the European Council in mid-June. Blair and Chirac feel themselves authorized to conduct a long-distance duel, which pulls no punches and which has as its main object the reform of the budget. Other leaders issue contradictory statements on the future of enlargement and on foreign policy. On the other hand, positive messages are not lacking, either: in recent days, both the Cypriot and the Maltese Parliaments ratified the same Constitution that divided France and Holland. Luxembourg, in turn, has confirmed the holding of its referendum on the Constitution on Sunday 10 July. Greece and Turkey are speaking to each other again, and this dialogue raises hopes not only for a rapid solution to the historic division of the island of Cyprus, but also for the go-ahead to the negotiations on the EU accession of the Eurasian country. In this context, the most delicate issues on the negotiating table are at least four. The first is the future of the Constitutional Treaty. To enter into force, the Constitution needs to have the endorsement of all member states and so far only 12 have given their approval. How and when can the ratification procedures be resumed? And, more especially, how can a serious and wide-ranging debate get off the ground at the continental level, to explain to citizens that without the Constitution European integration cannot continue? The second controversial issue is the budget. No agreement yet exists about the EU budget for the years ahead. A compromise deal needs to be reached. But this compromise also needs to give rise to some lines of development for the future of Europe. On them will depend whether more importance is given to agricultural policy than to research, and whether or not greater support is given to the less developed regions and the economies of the new member countries. In this case, what is at stake is, in fact, the principle of subsidiarity, which has hitherto presided over the construction of the “common home”. At this point the third major problem facing Europe arises. It relates to the type of “social Europe” that the EU wants to construct: the Lisbon Strategy, devised five years ago to combine economic competitiveness and social cohesion, has remained in the starting blocks: do governments still believe in it? Lastly the fourth issue that is dividing Europe the date is approaching for the start of negotiations which could lead to the entry of Ankara into the EU (3 October). It can be expected that the question, from September on, will bring further agitation to the EU corridors of power. In this bailamme, the man who now holds the rotating Presidency of the European Council, British premier Tony Blair, has held out the prospect of holding an informal summit between European leaders to establish “what direction Europe should take in the future”. For the time being it is only a vague proposal, but it has the merit of travelling along the right road: In his six-month programme, Blair has in fact affirmed that he wants to revive the Union and this will only be possible by clarifying the major objectives Europe wishes to achieve, and the concrete strategies needed to pursue them.
