FRONT PAGE
With the summit in Lisbon and the go ahead to the new reform Treaty, the European Union can resume its forward march after the constitutional failure in 2005. The atmosphere that could be felt at the International Trade-Fair in the Portuguese capital – venue of the summit on 18-19 October – was one of liberation: “Enough of treaties and regulations: it’s now time to return to the real problems of people”, remarked the exhausted heads of state and of government of the 27.The “Lisbon Treaty”, as it has already been dubbed, will now have to be officially signed in December and ratified by member states in 2008 before coming into force – bar further setbacks – at the start of the following year. It is in essence a revision of the previous text, and takes on board various innovations already made in the draft Constitution. The EU institutions are reinforced and ought as a result to be more independent of the individual member states; the aim is to increase their functional autonomy and efficiency. We may think, in this sense, of the longer-standing role of President of the European Council (in office for a term of two and a half years) and the reinforced role of the High Representative for foreign policy, who will also be Vice-President of the Executive. Communitarized policies will also be boosted (e.g. that of energy and measures to combat climate change) and the scope for majority decisions will be wider, restricting that of the right of veto.The Treaty approved on the banks of the Tagus is over 250 pages long; it cannot be said that the objective of a major “legibility” of EU legislation has been achieved. It ought, however, to ensure greater democracy within the EU: the powers of co-decision of the European Parliament have been reinforced, and especially the Charter of Fundamental Rights has been made binding (though with opt-outs for Great Britain and Poland), thus ensuring cast-iron guarantees of rights and fundamental liberties to citizens of the Union.One negative aspect of the new Treaty, on the other hand, is the failure to insert in it a clause on EU symbols, i.e. flag, anthem and motto, which could have exerted a strong influence on public opinion and, in symbolic form, reinforced a sense of mutual identity and recognition.It is also worth devoting some remarks to the article that defines relations with the churches and to the Preamble. In this regard, an effective comment comes from Monsignor Noel Treanor, general secretary of COMECE (Commission of the Episcopates of the European Community), who places the emphasis on the introduction to Article 15b in the Treaty: it affirms respect for the status enjoyed by the churches and religious communities in conformity with the individual national laws. The same article recognises their “identity and their specific contribution”, and pledges on the part of the EU “an open, transparent and regular dialogue” with faith communities. “On the basis of this article – continues Treanor – the EU institutions are committed to maintaining a deeper dialogue with the churches, thus permitting Christians more effectively to accompany the process of European construction”. COMECE further notes that the Treaty is introduced by a preamble that “recognises the cultural, religious and humanist legacies of Europe”. On this point Treanor points out that “the debate on the Christian roots of Europe is beneficial for reflection on the European identity” and “must therefore continue”. The COMECE secretary encourages Christians to devote themselves to questions and issues of the European debate. “The reform Treaty, despite its shortcomings and its complexity, represents a satisfactory institutional solution for the enlarged EU”; it also introduces “necessary reforms in the decision-making process that ought to permit the process of European construction to be continued on a just and effective basis”.
