I wasn’t expecting that. Not in a month of dodgy backroom discussions, bad compromises, and shoddy short-term attempts at political face-saving.
Yep – they’ve actually struck a deal on a new EU treaty.
However, I’ll have to reserve judgement on the thing until I’ve had a chance to read it – and considering it was only agreed a few hours ago, I’ll need a bit of time on that one…
Some things it does seem to be keeping from the old constitution no one can really – if they think about it for half a moment – argue with:
– more power for Parliament (i.e. more democracy and accountability)
– a weaker Commission (i.e. more democracy and accountability)
– a proper president (i.e. – hopefully – more democracy and accountability)
Others kept on have less obvious immediate benefits, like the EU foreign minister (after all, what’s the point when there’s nothing like foreign policy agreement across all 27 member states, and we’re pretty much all members of NATO anyway?). But all that really sounds like is giving Javier Solana a fancier job title.
The reduction of veto powers is also going ahead – essential for any movement on pretty much any issue, especially with the likes of the current Polish government throwing their weight around – and that too is going to give the Eurosceptics plenty of room for ranting shouts of lost sovereignty and the like.
But then, let’s face it, when it comes to the EU, the Eurosceptics are always going to find something to moan about.
Anyway, first reaction: Yet another botched compromise and yet more delaying tactics (they’ve put off restructuring the voting weights until 2014 – when, they’re no doubt hoping, the current Polish government will no longer be in power to veto the new proposals.
More detailed analysis some point in the next few days, most likely.
(Oh, and sorry for the radio silence here recently – an insanely hectic week in the real world. Of which more if/when it all comes off…)
The Economist’s Europe Blog (reporting at 2:30am) – “a ridiculously drawn-out Brussels summit is set to end with a deal that pleases nobody. Business as usual, in short.”
England Expects – “Sarko tells us that France wins, Blair says that the UK wins, Merkel says Europe wins. It’s an odd game when everybody is a winner.”
Mark Mardell (BBC Europe Editor) – “As for those who support the European Union, the pragmatists will be relieved and the idealists mortified. The Merkels, Sarkozys, Barrosos and possibly even Browns of this world will be relieved that a union of 27 states can still, just about, reach an agreement… There will, again, be talk of an inner core pressing ahead alone. As the outgoing Belgian prime minister has pointed out, there already is one: the countries that are in the euro, donâ€™t have border controls and co-operate on policing. They will feel a glimmer of hope that even if the steps are tiny, then at least they are going in the right direction.”
International Herald Tribune – “Failure would have damaged Europe’s aspirations to improve its stature on the world stage at a time when the union is striving to become an equal partner with Washington and play a leading role on global issues like climate change, the Middle East and an assertive Russia.”
Telegraph – “The new treaty – due to be signed by the end of this year and come into effect in 2009 – will create a new post of President of Europe and a single legal identity for the EU, allowing it to sign up to international deals. But it grants the UK an opt-out on a charter of human and social rights, retains Britain’s independent foreign policy and tax and benefit arrangements and allows the Government in Westminster to “opt in” to those parts of EU judicial and crime policy it chooses.”
Financial Times – “Although stripped of its grand title and symbols of statehood like a flag and anthem, the new treaty contains many of the constitution’s main ideas for making the enlarged EU more efficient and coherent on the world stage… But Mr Blair’s failure to stop Mr Sarkozy watering down the competition references in the treaty infuriated Gordon Brown”
Deutsche Welle – “Blair largely succeeded in sticking to the four ‘red line’ conditions he set for agreement on the new treaty — that Britain would not cede control over foreign policy, its judicial and police system, tax and social security rules, and an EU charter of fundamental rights.”
Independent – “At lunchtime, Mr Blair was happy with his deal with the French President and his spokesman said French ‘sensitivities’ could be addressed. But Mr Brown’s intervention forced him to return to the negotiating table. A legally binding protocol stressing the EU’s belief in competition was then added to the ‘mini-treaty’ after talks involving Mr Blair, M Sarkozy and JosÃ© Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.”
Guardian – “While the Blair camp argued it had defended all the key British positions against Brussels’s interference in the British legal system and legislation, the incoming Brown government is nonetheless certain to face a storm of protest from the Eurosceptic press, and the Conservative opposition demanding a referendum on Europe’s new “reform treaty” replacing the defunct 2004 constitution.”
EU Observer – “The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any beauty contests: easier-to-grasp names such as EU ‘laws’ have been dropped in order to maintain the current ‘regulations’ and ‘directives’ seen as less symbolic of statehood; the flag, anthem, motto and name ‘constitution’ fell by way of the same argument.”
New York Times – “Failure would have damaged Europeâ€™s aspirations to improve its stature on the world stage at a time when the European Union is striving to become an equal partner with Washington and play a leading role on global issues like climate change, the Middle East and an assertive Russia. It would also have severely damaged Mrs. Merkel, who had staked Berlinâ€™s prestige on a successful outcome now, when it holds the European Unionâ€™s rotating presidency.”
Le Monde has a breakdown of what the new treaty will contain (in French, of course)
Meanwhile, “mastermind” of the piss-poor constitutional treaty, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, is still blathering on about the popularity of his baby on his shiny new blog. I know that having a still-born child must be traumatic, but you’d think he’d be over it by now.
And finally, here’s the summary of the summit (WARNING: .PDF) – thankfully only 32 pages rather than the hundreds of the old constitution… This looks like it covers the majority of what will be the final treaty text.
In-depth analysis soon. Promise. (Probably…)
Update: EU Referendum (having recently had some nice, sensible EU posts after a militaristic few months) goes back to playing to the batty eurosceptic gallery: “a naked coup d’etat attempt”.
Heh! Funny paranoid patriots done gone all hyperbolic and silly again. I also like “the European Union â€“ as represented by the European Council â€“ is seeking to dictate to the member states what it shall (and shall not) include in a treaty”.
Erm… The Council of the European Union is made up of the heads of each EU member state. Wouldn’t “the heads of the EU member states are seeking to tell their own countries what they are going to include in the treaty” be slightly more accurate?