Europe is set to have another historic rendezvous on the 21st and 22nd of June. This European Council will turn the heads of state and government of the 27 member countries into negotiators. They must agree on a new Treaty intended to replace, amend, or “simplify” the European Constitution project. This project was rejected in 2005 by France and the Netherlands but – it should be remembered – ratified by 18 other European states. All jurists know that canceling a contract presents fewer difficulties than attempting to modify only some of its clauses. The preparations for this meeting give the impression of a large-scale haggling, in essence and in form, with everyone trying to take advantage of the opportunity to gain an advantage or a concession. The temptation is all the greater as it seems to offer everyone the politically acceptable illusion of dressing Europe in completely new clothes.
Some are thus discussing the disappearance in the new Treaty of the mention of strong European “symbols,” unacceptable in the eyes of nationalists, such as its flag, anthem, annual celebration, or even its currency. Yet it is in these symbols that a large part of European populations identify today and not in the renaming of texts from Brussels, whether they are called “directives” or “European framework laws.” Others aim to remove the future “Minister of Foreign Affairs” of the Union, which Europe would indeed need to strengthen its presence on the international stage, but whose principle clashes with the demanding sovereignty of traditional diplomacies. While some insist on extending the areas where a qualified majority vote would be allowed, some intractables fight for a weighting system of votes more favorable to their interests. Not to mention attempts to “camouflage” the integration of essential provisions into mere amendments of older texts and thus not subject to popular or parliamentary approval.
The wide rejection by the French of the European Constitution project was due to the often convoluted complexity of the central text, its serious lack of explanations, and let us remember, the opportunity offered on a platter by this electoral consultation to sanction a government that was deaf at the time to repeated calls for changes. In light of the abstention rate in the first round of the recent legislative elections, a record under the Fifth Republic, it is not assured that a parliamentary vote alone on this new “Treaty” will satisfy most of our compatriots, always quick to be wary when it comes to Europe. Unless Europe plays completely transparent in the crafting of these new rules, it is to be feared that this meeting between a people and the European Idea may once again be missed. In an “enlightening” op-ed to “Le Monde” signed as former president of the European Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing calls, like Goethe, for “mehr Licht” (“more light… for Europe”), continues the former President of the Republic. Let us hope that Europe enjoys this blessing without being, like the German poet when he uttered these words, at the ultimate moment of his agony.
