It’s time to move forward

Once again, but perhaps never before so much as now, speaking of Europe and the reform of the EU decision-making process, we must bear well in mind the proverb “clothes don’t make the man”. Appearances are deceptive. We refer to the new Lisbon Treaty, which is now in the starting gates, following its signing “in extremis” by the President of the Czech Republic and especially the forced re-run (this time positive) of the referendum of the Irish ratification. Institutions and their functioning, allocation of powers, role of the European Parliament and of the national parliaments, relations of Brussels with the governments of member states, President of the Union and High Representative for foreign policy: everything seems to be changing for the better.The most obvious innovation in form and substance is the new-style President of the European Council, who is now appointed to serve a term of two and a half years, once renewable. His job is to “chair and animate the work of the European Council, ensure the preparation and continuity of its work, take steps to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council (…) and ensure the external representation of the Union for matters relating to foreign policy and common security, without prejudicing the powers assigned to the High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy”. He is, on paper, the person that Henry Kissinger sought when, as US Secretary of State, he asked: “If I call Europe, who will lift up the phone?”.The role of the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy is also confirmed and reinforced; apart from assuming the post of Vice-President of the European Commission, he/she is a kind of EU Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was hitherto lacking, but whose powers are limited both by the role of the President of the European Council and – understandably enough in terms of the fragility of the whole system – by the specific content of the new Treaty according to which “foreign policy and common security have a specific character within the EU and cannot prejudice the foreign policy and representation to international institutions of member states”.The “double majority” voting system is also being gradually introduced; that means that a decision taken in the European Council, if it is to be approved, must be supported by the majority of European governments and the populations they represent, thus finally putting an end to the blackmail-prone veto system. The powers of the EU and those of member states are now defined and delimited in undoubtedly a clearer way, to avoid situations of stalemate or superimposition. The environment and measures to curb climate change are now raised to the rank of real political priorities in Europe.Apart from the formal garb, however, there also exists the substantial experience: and from this, in terms of the history of European integration, we can and must learn (and foresee) a great deal. How many times, indeed, have the heads of state and of government had to sell the cashmere that had already been spun to dress in polyester fibre, destroying by a process of lowest-common-denominator compromise and defence of national interests (economic for the most part) everything good and necessary that was being proposed to improve the “res publica”? And how often has also the opposite happened, i.e. that major steps forward have been born out of the blue, as unexpected as the sun at midnight, as a result of often personal initiatives and/or intuitions?That’s why it’s our duty as citizens and professionals of information to be cautious, evaluate facts and not words, and avoid the sterile criticism “ex ante” (still less “ex post”, which serves no purpose). Rather we should criticise constructively “in itinere”. It’s time to move forward. Our compass must be set with decision, with hope and with optimism for the common good of European citizens. The present phase of crisis obliges us so. Uncertainty about the future requires of us engagement and not disengagement, strengthened by the fact that the Lisbon Treaty, whatever its weaknesses, is a binding document and that governments and institutions have the duty solemnly to strive to ensure its correct application; and to improve it, where necessary, as we move forward, without disguising ourselves behind the glitter of party dress.