At reduced speed

Now that the spotlight has been turned off the summit of 21-22 June, what conclusions can we draw? Is the glass half full or half empty? These are not empty questions, given that the leaders of the 27 who were the protagonists of the summit tried to answer them, each according to his/her own point of view.Those heads of state and of government who judged the meeting – decisive for overcoming the impasse caused by the French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution – on the basis of the prognoses on the eve of the summit, have spoken of a “success”, of an “honourable compromise”, or of “a good balance” between opposing positions. The leaders who by contrast judged the event in the light of more demanding expectations on European integration have condemned it, albeit with different nuances, as a substantial failure. As always is the case, the reality lies somewhere in between. One thing is certain: after last week’s European Constitution there will be no more talk of a European Constitution. This is in spite of the emphasis on it in recent years, the promises made, the commitments assumed towards citizens, and the text approved in Brussels in June 2004 and solemnly signed by the highest political exponents of the member states in Rome in October of the same year. Not to mention the 18 ratifications already completed against only two that rejected it and the wait-and-see attitude of a further seven governments. So a veil of silence falls over the “fundamental values” and the “great objectives” proclaimed by the Constitutional Treaty (it is enough to cite the treatment reserved for the Charter of Fundamental Rights). The ambitious reforms called for by the Convention are replaced by low-profile decisions. External policy and free economic policy remain, for the time being, on the threshold of the EU. Even the symbols of the Union (anthem, flag, motto), sanctioned by the ditched Constitution, are put into cold storage, despite all the high-sounding declarations of the need to bring the EU institutions closer to citizens.On the other hand, the summit, conducted with exemplary patience and diplomatic skill by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, does give the go ahead to an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) which, by the autumn of this year, and under Portuguese chairmanship, will be called on to draft a new treaty, amend the existing treaties and start up the stalled EU machine once again. The terms of reference of the IGC are sufficiently clear. It will have the job of producing a basic juridical text that should contain just a few but essential reforms: acquisition of juridical personality that will enable the EU to represent the member states on the international scene (though without a single EU seat at the UNO); system of vote for the Council based on dual majority (55% of states representing 65% of citizens), though one that will only come into full effect in 2017; reduction of the fields in which the right to veto can be exercised; longer-term mandate (two and a half years) for the President of the Council; High Representative for External Policy (the ambitious formula of “EU foreign minister” was ditched); a slimmed-down Commission; reinforcement of the Parliament in Strasbourg and of the national parliaments in the legislative process. In substance the Union is decelerating on the level of integration: the member states will continue to surrender to it parts of their sovereignty, but at a slower pace than many “europhiles” and federalists hoped. And while the rest of the world (USA, China, India, Brazil…) is putting its foot on the accelerator, Europe of the 27 is pulling the hand brake, despite knowing full well that the great global challenges – from democracy to peace, from the economy to demography, from security to climate change – will give no discounts to latecomers.