Speakers Corner Liberal Social

The EU treaty that came to be last night seems, at first sight, a victory for those who feared that the future of the EU was in jeopardy. At last, with some threats to Poland, some form of an EU constitution could be delivered. The fact that the new treaty is an "amendment" of earlier versions also removes the need for awkward referendums. At least now, democracy no longer has to stand in the way of European integration. While it is regrettable that various degrees of Eurofobia in the UK, The Netherlands and Poland threatened the future of the European Union, it remains worrying that national governments now have the option to shy away from popular consultation when the expected result is not according to their wishes. Ireland will still have a referendum, Denmark maybe, France will not, and Dutch politicians are so afraid of taking that decision that they have asked judges to take the decision for them.

It is encouraging that national veto power has now been eliminated for nearly all topics. Yet it is hard to understand why the national voting power will take so long to properly reflect the populations. All Europeans are equal, but some will remain more equal until 2017.

Institutionally, most changes are appropriate. A full-time president of the Council of Europe and a High-Representative of Foreign Affairs will be good for the management of the EU, and a smaller Commission was inevitable given the now much larger number of Member States, that will most likely rise to 28 by 2009 after Croatia's entrance. The increased power given to the European Parliament seems very encouraging, but it remains to be seen whether this will really materialise. The European Commission needs to be controlled by the European Parliament and not by the national governments. In that sense, the Dutch initiative of giving national parliaments the option of blocking proposals is inappropriate, as it undermines the authority of the European Parliament.

This was also the first occasion at which we could see whether Nicolas Sarkozy really intends to reform the French economy. The first developments here have been unwelcome, to say the least. At the insistence of France, free and undistorted trade is no longer a core objective of the EU. Rather, it is now a core objective to "protect its citizens” in its dealings with the outside world (i.e. economic intervention). From a legal perspective it is now not even clear what powers the EC will have to regulate in internal market affairs, such as merger approval and monopoly prevention. This is a very disappointing development, as - between the two final candidates - Sarkozy was widely seen as the candidate least prone to protectionist reflexes. It seems however, that he suffers from the notorious French virus as well. One can only hope that French liberals will become stronger soon, not only for the sake of France itself, but also for the health and future of the European economy.