Let’s try to cut through all the spin on the Reform Treaty which was put on the IGC rails on Saturday morning 23 June.

First of all, the compromise reached is no more and no less than the draft Constitution brought in through the backdoor. In a mockery of the two no-referenda in France and the Netherlands, EU leaders have cynically undone any citizens’ reluctance to continue with the current European project. Even if they will manage to prevent future referenda on the Reform Treaty, this contempt for European citizens will come back to haunt the EU. At least, the “elitist” leaders of the past had the guts to defend their elitism, whereas the current generation preaches “better communication” (try to read the compromise text) and “reconnecting to citizens”.

Secondly and more important, what happened in Brussels in the last three days confirms that European leaders are not interested in a long-term vision for the continent but more in bringing something home that they can sell as “their” victory (be it the Polish victory on the double majority voting, the British opt-out of the Charter, the French surprise attack on “free and undistored competition”, or the German “Merkel does it again” triumph).

What the summit has proved is that the two-speed Europe is already a reality, as Belgian former Commissioner Karel Van Miert underlined to his country’s press. French journalist Jean Quatremer makes the same evaluation in the Libération article “L’ébauche d’une Europe à deux vitesses“.

Now it is time to move on from a two-speed Europe to a “two-vision Europe” because behind all the obvious European politicking, there are two different visions on the future of the European project (which political leaders do not dare to pronounce or politicise openly). The first vision is based on the 20th century liberal competitiveness-economic growth ideology which aims to have Europe win the “battle of globalisation” without understanding that globalisation means increasing interconnectedness where there is no winning without losing in some other respect.

The second vision is one of ecological industrial modernisation of Europe which recognises the interconnectedness of globalisation and the “new scarcity” as expressed in the recent urgency of climate change and energy security policies.

The problem with the two-speed Europe or the concept of “enhanced cooperation” is that it splits up EU member states in “leaders” and “laggards” or “avant-garde” and “arrière-garde”. Maybe the two-vision Europe could overcome this problem. A Europe consisting of two groups of countries each developing cooperation along their vision might also remobilise citizens’ interest. And may the best vision win!

More interesting reading on the Reform Treaty summit:

• EurActiv: Summit seals mandate for EU ‘Reform Treaty’
• BBC News: At-a-glance: EU treaty proposals
• EU Referendum blog: The European Council “mandate” analysed
• Federal Union: The new EU Reform Treaty

Will the European Council meeting of 21-22 June go down in history as a “new beginning” after the draft Constitution failure in France and the Netherlands? I am sure it will not.

Even if, on Friday, EU leaders manage to strike a deal on a “roadmap” to a new Treaty, what the summit will be remembered for is the unshameful politicking of men and women pretending to be “political leaders” in an effort to undo the first citizens’ resistance to an elite-led European project. The way Chancellor Merkel and her spin doctors have been trying to revive the Constitution without daring to speak its name and to make sure that never again people will be asked in referenda to express their feelings about the EU project, is likely to go into history as the “great constitution swindle”.

And then again, whatever happens, I do not think it will bring the Union much relief. Within the negotiating process, so many differences of opinion and of values have turned up that this EU can hardly be called a “Europe of values” anymore. It is only a matter of months or years before the new deal will also be unravelled.

As we have said in earlier posts, this EU is at its end and needs to re-engineer itself. Of course this will not happen with 27 members. Some of them are not ready for the new big vision. But those who really believe that the 21st century challenges need more global cooperation will have to find ways of getting out under the old ruins and start building the new eco-house. Who takes the lead? My money is on the Dutch

More interesting comments on the summit:

• EU Referendum: A gigantic, ocean-going con
• EU Referendum: We aren’t idiots

The Times has published the “full text of Mrs Merkel’s Blueprint for Europe”

Do we need a new European treaty in order to save our climate? EU President Barroso certainly seems to think so.
According to today’s Financial Times, the Commission President has warned future UK prime minister Gordon Brown not to block a compromise deal on a watered-down European treaty. If the UK would fail to agree to the new compromise, it might undermine efforts to fight climate change and reach a Doha trade deal. With this threat, Barrosos is putting pressure on Mr Brown, according to the FT.
Well, I am sure that Blair’s successor is not that dumb
There was nothing in the old, failed draft Constitution, nor in the current compromise which, in any way, would make a big difference as to Europe’s ability to tackle global warming. Suddenly now for the Commission President any reference to climate change seems a good argument to use to win his power fights. What happened to the Lisbon agenda, Mr President? Where did you forget your old battlehorse?

With more than half of the world population living in mega-cities, the miracle key to opening the door of a low-carbon Europe lies in these cities. Therefore, the C40 initiative, led by London, and supported by the Clinton Foundation, probably does more for the fight against climate change and energy insecurity than all UN climate diplomacy. More on this week’s meeting of the C40 in New York can be found in The Guardian and the New York Times.
In this context, it is regrettable that the current EU architecture provides no real instruments to leverage cities’ potential contribution to a new “energy prosperity”. As long as cities are not really involved in the European Union’s governance, is this surprising? If cities would have more of a voice in EU policy-making, it would also bring citizens closer to the EU.
Maybe the architects of a new Eco-Europe architecture should think about redefining the role of the Committee of the Regions and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions? Who has any good suggestions?
Further reading:

• Sustainable cities and towns campaign
• 24-25 May: German Presidency to present Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities

I attended two citizens’s debates on the EU’s constitutional crisis in the last few days and got ample confirmation that we are just whistling in the dark when confronted with what is probably one of the EU’s most serious crises.
The first debate on the June 2007 roadmap (taking place in the European Parliament on 9 May) was totally dominated by two MEP “elephants” of the Constitutional debate, Jens-Peter Bonde and Inigo Mendez de Vigo. Both these “anciens” are so “locked” into the technicalities of the Constitution debate that they can no longer see beyond the horizon of their institutional logic. Their interventions, although entertaining, left me certainly on my hunger for a visionary counter-medicine to the “future-of-the-EU paralysis” that I see everywhere in Brussels and other capitals.
Fortunately, the panel also included Raymond van Ermen whose vision for a “way out of the constitutional crisis” comes close to my own ideas as set out in a recent article I wrote for Diplomatic World. But Raymond’s plea for a new “sustainability” vision of Europe did not get any serious reaction from both MEPs.
What most speakers agreed on, though, was that the German Presidency has returned to “methods of the past”, namely intergovenmental talks behind closed doors to revive the dead constitution. Did Frau Merkel ever read Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”?
The willingness (or lack of it) of European political leaders was also raised during a “European Citizens’ Consultations” meeting on 10 May. During that event, a representation of European citizens handed over the results of a Europe-wide consultation of citizens on future priorities for the EU to Commissioner Wallström and two MEPs. With her usual flair, Margot Wallström tried to keep up appearances and promised that the commission will take the “citizens report” seriously. I know that she means it but do her fellow commissioners? And does the German Presidency? It seemed to me significant that no representative of Presidency was present during the handover event.
My conclusion and recommendation: if political leaders ignore us, let’s ignore them in return. Let’s work on a new vision for Europe with a strong participatory dimension and forget about the petty institutional tinkering which they try to sell as the “future of the EU”.