Time, patience and determination

The many years of disagreements over the Reform Treaty enforced December 1st 2009 have taught us that EU development depends on its Member States’ determination. To be true, the sovereignty of European Union sovereign States in the globalization era is ever less marked by power, and indeed it does consist in a juridical title. Nonetheless it continues conferring Member States the trait of “The Lords of the Treaties”. Until Member States venture implementing their policies at EU level or with its support, deemed more advantageous than individual initiative, they will continue supporting this Union’s organization. Only with their consensus – namely, the sole consensus of all Member States – can changes be made to European institutions, to their specific responsibilities and decision-making processes. Finally, this is also true as regards legislation, although in this case majority decisions are possible, and also the European Parliament is entitled to express its view. The need for political unity and for integration isn’t unanimously – or simultaneously – valued. From the onset, Member States’ interests differed, and even if they had been identical, they would still differ from a subjective and national standpoint, and diverge from one nation to the next. What most differ are the ideas regarding the binding trait of the union and its implementation modalities. These concepts are defined according to the respective political culture, national tradition, and historical backgrounds. These remarks may appear trite. However, we must occasionally recall their true meaning in order to grasp the peculiar trait of the European unification process. Most of all, we need to understand that time, patience and determination are required in the accomplishment of much needed consensus, crucial to the decision-making process and to be found among its stakeholders and within the public opinion of each Member State. Consensus is reached by means of ongoing dialogue and debate, through mutual confrontation and translation, through conscience-awareness processes, with information and explanations conveyed by numerous Commissions. Those who belittle such “everlasting conversations” and demand a strong leadership, risk triggering misunderstandings on the leadership powers within a given political system whose identity is not yet mature, and thus doesn’t yet identify in a given leader. Indeed, the matter at stake isn’t a strong leadership. Rather, unending consultations lay the foundations of understanding and agreement leading to compromises that bring unification and unity. Thus, in order to achieve compromise and consensus, the related Institutions and procedures ought to promote and ensure the transmission of diverging views through an authoritative approach in order to undertake a common path leading to achievements. The Lisbon Treaty triggered the creation of a number of new proposals and sanctioned the establishment of new Institutions, offering new possibilities of conducting Member States’ leadership in the same direction. One of the most important novelties consists in the adoption of a permanent European Council presidency. The Heads of Government and State took the wise decision of assigning the current Belgian premier, discrete and reserved Minister Herman Van Rompuy, to this post. Intelligent and expert Christian-Democrat party member, Van Rompuy is also a good listener and has often shown that he can bring together differing spirits and temperaments by reaching reasonable compromises. Even this new phase of European policy will be marked by the absence of determined architects which unification requires and by the presence of those who will patiently show they can undertake the commitment of understanding their partners and reaching an agreement with them in the Community’s higher interest.