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

It is amazing what media attention can do. Now that all of them have seen the green light (or is it the “inconventient truth”?), politicians are trying to compete for becoming the climate champion of the year, the “EU Al Gore”. If ever the thesis about our “spectacle” democracy needed any confirmation, we can find it in the “spectacular” way climate change (an issue known since the beginning of the 90s) has fired itself onto the political agenda.

Who would have thought one year ago that new French President Sarkozy would have a superminister for ecology? Why is even Brown becoming green?

And of course, our respected members of the European Parliament just had to wake up to the climate heat too. So, let’s create a 60-members big special committee which is going to find THE solution by travelling around the world to talk to other parliaments.

Ah, and another good idea: let’s make the European Parliament “carbon-neutral”, that will show them. So the EP Bureau is to decide on 18 June to commission some “independent external experts” to evaluate the Parliament’s carbon footprint in order to later define an action plan to reduce greenhouse gas reductions of the Brussels and Strasbourg activities.

Oops, but small problem there. The issue of the two seats is kind of a taboo and, for sure, not the competence of the MEPs themselves but of the 27 governments of the EU. So we will not measure the carbon footprint of the fact of having two seats (a study by the way which was commissioned by Green MEPs Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert last month).

My recommendation to all my dear MEP friends: maybe the next European Parliament (the one chosen by probably one third of our voters in 2009) should declare a five-year moratorium on its normal activities and focus itself on defining a new European eco-vision? Now, wouldn’t that be something?