Countdown

In little more than two weeks’ time the Lisbon Treaty should (the conditional tense is prudent) come into force. The 27 member states of the European Union have decided to renew the fundamental rules of their cooperation by assigning to the enlarged Europe, “daughter” of the fall of the Berlin Wall, greater transparency, a solid representative democracy and greater effectiveness in action. In recent times public opinion has even begun turning renewed attention to the Treaty: in this sense we need to recognize that the Irish referendum of 2 October and the signature of Czech President Klaus on 3 November ensured that many FrontPage headlines and television reports were dedicated to the “institutional question”.Renewed interest. Signed in the Portuguese capital at the end of 2007, the Reform Treaty is set to come into force on 1st December. The most accident-prone phase of the process was that of national ratification, essential condition for the Treaty’s entry into force. In the large majority of EU states it did not encounter any resistance. In Ireland, on the other hand, two popular referendums were needed before it could be ratified, while in some countries recourse was had to the Constitutional Court to clarify whether the Lisbon Treaty contravened national constitutions. A pronouncement of the German Constitutional Court aroused particular interest in this sense, while in the Czech Republic, the head of state, Vaclav Klaus, awaited the opinion of the country’s highest court before adding his signature to the treaty, not without repeating once again that he was personally opposed to it. In the UK and in Poland ratification was only possible after their governments had negotiated, and obtained, opt-out clauses regarding the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights annexed to the Treaty. The same request was made, and finally obtained, also by Prague.The key figures. The Lisbon Treaty is now under the spotlight with particular regard to some decisions that have to be taken in Brussels and Strasbourg before in comes into force on 1st December. The European Council in late October, the extraordinary meeting of the Council in November, and recent sessions of the European Parliament, have focused on the nomination, or short-listing, of the key figures for the work of the EU: first the President of the Commission was chosen (with the re-confirmation of the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso), and now it’s time to appoint the personalities who will have to fill the key posts of “stable” President of the European Council and High Representative for Common Foreign Policy, who will also be Vice-President of the Commission and head of the fledgling EU diplomatic service. The next step will be the indication, by member states, of their respective representatives to serve in the Commission, who will first have to be vetted (auditions and vote) by the European Parliament before they can be appointed as Commissioners. These clearly are delicate political processes, in which converge the search for personalities equal to the individual roles, the interests of States, and the influence exerted by the main European political groups.In London and in Prague… In the meantime the mass media continue to follow European events: in many cases with renewed support, or even enthusiasm, for the EU, which is seen to be “moving ahead” and “taking decisions”, but sometimes with the usual “euro-sceptical” attitudes. The difference between press and TV are easily perceptible at the various latitudes and often information and debate are shaped more by domestic than by European political questions. That’s the case in the UK, where ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and even continuing membership of the EU, have become issues at the centre of the political debate in the run-up to next year’s general elections, characterized by heated exchange between Conservatives, Labourites, Liberal Democrats and anti-European nationalists. In the Czech Republic, never has so much been spoken and written about Europe until Klaus finally ended his resistance and signed the Treaty which had already been ratified by the national parliament. After he had added his signature, the capital’s daily, “Mladá Fronta Dnes” observed that the President “did not agree, but signed it all the same”. The paper added that all States had to surrender “a part of their national sovereignty to enter the Union”, where now “their representatives can in any case defend the interests of each country”. From rules to realities. “De Volkskrant”, the Dutch daily, made the point: “The time has come for Europe to show its citizens that it truly is a spearhead for progress”. For its part the “Irish Times”, which had assiduously followed the uphill battle of the double referendum in the emerald isle, expressed the view: “The trauma of Lisbon is perhaps now behind us, but the disaffection of citizens will remain a crucial challenge for European leaders”. No less concerned is the tone of the Polish paper “Gazeta Wyborcza”: “Thanks to the rules fixed by the Lisbon Treaty, Europe has the opportunity to take a great leap forwards”, but “the treaties, however perfect they are, will remain a dead letter if no one has the will to transform them into realities”.