2009 is getting close

On 25 March, 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Presidents of the three main European institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament) signed the Berlin Declaration, a document strongly desired by the German Presidency of the EU to “review” half a century of integration, peace and development and to revive the process of reform interrupted by the French and Dutch rejection of the Constitutional Treaty. In spite of the unjustified criticisms about the way in which agreement was reached on the text, if the Declaration is, as we believe, a serious matter, it contains a clear message and an equally clear commitment that the 27 member states are bound to respect: “we are today united in the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the elections to the European Parliament in 2009”. As if to say: the period of reflection that Brussels had granted itself and the governments of Europe is over, and the EU must have a new Treaty within two years.There’s no shortage of European issues filling the front pages today: recent and future accessions; the globalization of politics, economy and trade; the challenges of climate change, energy, demographic ageing, unemployment, the struggle against internal and external poverty and sustainable development. All these things tell us that the Europe of the future cannot function as it is today. Or rather, if it fails to adapt, it will be a lame duck and incapable of managing change and helping to improve living standards also beyond the frontiers of the EU. Europe needs new energies, new ideas and an institutional reform that may enable her to work in a way consonant with the needs of the decades ahead.The foundation exists. The Treaty that introduces a Constitution for the EU contains numerous provisions able to make the difference rapidly and effectively: extension of the majority vote, powers of the Union and principle of subsidiarity, introduction of the roles of President of the European Council and EU Foreign Minister. But many political and economic establishments (succumbing, some out of conviction, some out of convenience, to everything positive that has so far been achieved) still lack courage, determination and vision of a future that asks of us the maximum possible level of integration. In substance the positions are two: on the one hand, the position of Germany and Italy that are willing to re-place under discussion only partially the hard-won agreements reached in 2004, and that want to immediately convene a new Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) to negotiate a shared text to be adopted as soon as possible; on the other, countries such as the UK and Holland for which Europe functions well enough with the existing Treaties and efforts should therefore be concentrated on a less ambitious conventional Treaty without any need for ratification by referendum. There are of course various nuances in both camps, in primis on the qualified majority vote (Poland, for example, with the Constitution would have less influence in the Council than she does according to the system now in force) and on the role of the EU Foreign Minister in relation to national diplomacies.In spite of undeniable good faith, some unorthodox initiatives by those who think they can manage the European Union and the future of half a billion citizens as a personal affair do not help. Equally unhelpful are the declarations of those – from the presidential dais of this or that government – who still reason with the logic of the veto and of compromise based on the lowest common denominator. Of course, the IGCs have never given great proof of their efficacy, but it is difficult to see any other way of advancing Europe wherever obstacles and resistance are essentially of a governmental and nationalistic, if not even ideological nature: for this reason the full association of the European Parliament in the work of the Conference would be of particular significance