First round of analysis
5.4. Turning point two: institutionalisation of the debate
5.4.2. Once again, the debate is launched – the press coverage of the Laeken Declaration The ten-day survey of the 17 newspapers for coverage of the Laeken Declaration yielded 125
articles (see figure 27).
Figure 27: The press coverage of the Laeken Declaration
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
12.12 13.12 14.12 15.12 16.12 17.12 18.12 19.12 20.12 21.12 Date of publication
No. of articles Spain
Germany France England Denmark
Included in this set of data are 13 commentaries, nine leaders, one letter, and 102 news stories.
There are four dominant themes of the coverage: the declaration, the Convention, the possibility of a European constitution, and the bargaining process of the summit (see table 6). In the following, each of the four themes will be presented individually.
Declaration Convention Constitution Bargaining Other issues
Total 51% 70% 34% 20% 38%
Denmark 48% 67% 19% 22% 30%
England 46% 62% 40% 32% 49%
France 50% 83% 25% 17% 42%
Germany 38% 72% 31% 13% 28%
Spain 71% 65% 53% 18% 41%
Table 6: Recurrent themes of the Laeken coverage121
Creation of consensus on the declaration
In combination the articles dealing with the Laeken Declaration present a rather detailed account of how agreement on the text was reached. A reflection group set up by Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian Prime Minister, and consisting of various political notabilities drafted the declaration.122 In
anticipation of the Laeken summit Verhofstadt toured the member states’ capitals with the reflection group’s draft declaration, taking note of the leaders’ comments and amending the text accordingly. The first draft was reportedly criticised in Copenhagen, London, Paris, and Madrid, whereas Berlin is said to be supportive of the text.123 Jyllands-Posten notes that the draft declaration gave rise to a paradoxical divide: “the countries that are most eager for integration are busy scolding the EU, while the sceptical countries like Great Britain and Denmark are defending the Union”
(12/12/01B). Amidst the reports on the necessity to water down the declaration, the coverage contains several calls for an ambitious statement. It is suggested that the declaration should
“…inject fresh impulse into the ‘deeper and wider debate about the future of the European Union’
launched a year ago in Nice” (FT 14/12/01A). And a sense of urgency emerges from the claim that
121 The table shows how many percent of the coverage dealt with the theme in question. Please note that more than one theme may be present within the same article (the total is more than a 100%). The category “Other issues” mainly consists of coverage of the other items that were dealt with at the Laeken summit, such as the creation of an EU rapid reaction force, the common European satellite project, Galileo, or the development of a European patent. Also, there was mention of the upcoming introduction of the euro and the possibility of a British referendum on the common European currency.
122 CD 17/12/01 and 20/12/01.
123 JP 12/12/01B, FT 12/12/01and 13/12/01A+C, Inf 14/12/01, Tim 14/12/01, CD 14/12/01A+B.
the initiatives to be put forth in the declaration offer “…the last chance […] of strengthening the Union before enlargement” (SZ 13/12/01).
The declaration is to be finalised at Laeken, and as the leaders begin their discussions the coverage comments on the negotiating process and its possible outcome. As noted by Le Monde:
The heads of state and government can choose to debate the text prepared by the Belgian presidency profoundly, or consider that it only has a relative importance in so far as it will pass through the mill of the Convention, then of the Intergovernmental Conference. All will depend on the manner in which Guy Verhofstadt has taken account of the remarks made by his partners (14/12/01).
It soon emerges that the declaration has been toned down considerably, and agreement is promptly reached.124 However, it is noted that the smooth acceptance of the final version of the declaration does not mean everyone interprets the text in the same way.125 And the agreed text retains some points that are uncomfortable to the leaders of the more sceptical member states.126 A Süddeutsche Zeitung article suggests that political pressure was the reason why the declaration was signed in spite of the remaining differences: “After the disaster summit last December in Nice the Union’s ridiculousness would have been exposed once and for all, if Laeken had also been a failure”
(17/12/01A).
Another factor, which contributes to the relatively easy acceptance of the declaration, is that it is now generally accepted that further debate on the future of Europe is needed. Although some national leaders, as noted above, continue to hold reservations about how far-going the reforms should be, there has emerged a common understanding of the need for both reforming the EU and changing the reform process itself. The politicians’ attitude is mirrored in the coverage: the necessity of reform is presupposed and the resolution to continue the debate receives almost full support.
124 FT 14/12/01B, JP 15/12/01B, BT 15/12/01, EP 15/12/01 and 16/12/01B+D, Ind 16/12/01, taz 17/12/01B, Tim 18/12/01.
125 JP 16/12/01B.
126 BT 15/12/01, EP 15/12/01, FAZ 15/12/01B, EP 16/12/01C, Guar 17/12/01A+B, FT 17/12/01A+C, EP 20/12/01.
Setting up the Convention
The Laeken Declaration sets up the Convention on the Future of Europe,127 designating its
composition and mandate, and hence the question of what the Convention will look like is closely related to the creation of the declaration. In fact, it is generally agreed that setting up the
Convention is the most important task of the declaration, and it is reported to be the one issue that gave cause to real controversy during the negotiation of the final text.128 Another general feature is the consistent presentation of the happenings at Nice as the reason why everyone now agrees that the method for reforming the EU’s foundational treaties must be changed.129 The Convention is said to represent a procedural novelty meant to create a genuinely consensual basis for reforms rather than leaving the reform process at the mercy of the heads of state and government who are likely to put their own national interests before those of the Union. Moreover, it is reported that the purpose of the Convention is not only to ensure a better result, but also to strengthen people’s involvement in the reform; both the process and its result are to enhance the public support of the European project. As The Guardian puts it, the leaders’ “…most important mission [at Laeken] may be launching a great debate on the future of the EU – ensuring it brings some changes in its wake”
(13/12/01).
The coverage of the entire summit is marked by a tension between hope of renewal and suspicion of a lapse into the problematic patterns of former meetings. However, the tension is especially evident in the articles dealing with the different issues that had to be settled in order to establish the Convention. Initial disagreements concern the agenda and mandate of the Convention, an issue that is closely linked to the different opinions on the general tone of the declaration. Here, the intergovernmentalists are portrayed as preferring a restricted agenda for a forum that is to deliver inspirational input to the following IGC. The federalists, on the contrary, are said to strive for a Convention with a broad room for discussion and to hope that its eventual recommendations will become impossible to ignore.130 In spite of the opposite opinions on the agenda and mandate of the Convention, disputes about the composition of the Convention and especially about who should
127 Only two articles pay any serious attention to the question of what a convention is and which historical antecedents the present initiative has (FAZ 14/12/01B, SZ 14/12/01A). The rest of the coverage either inserts a short explanatory note, usually stating that The Convention is the EU’s new, broad forum for debate, or simply leaves the term unexplained.
128 JP 12/12/01B, Ind 12/12/01, FT 12/12/01, Guar 13/12/01, FT 13/12/01C, taz 13/12/01A+B, JP 14/12/01A, Guar 14/12/01, CD 14/12/01B, Lib 14/12/01, FAZ 14/12/01B, JP 15/12/01B, LM 15/12/01A.
129 taz 12/12/01A, Pol 13/12/01, Guar 13/12/01, FT 13/12/01, Inf 14/12/01, Lib 14/12/01, LM 14/12/01, SZ 14/12/01A, FAZ 14/12/01B and 15/12/01B, BT 16/12/01B and 17/12/01, FT 17/12/01A.
130 LM 12/12/01, SZ 13/12/01 and 14/12/01A, FAZ 14/12/01A, JP 16/12/01B.
chair it proved to be more intense, and most attention is paid to these compositional issues.
In the “souk-like atmosphere” that Financial Times (14/12/01B) felt had descended on Laeken a decision on who should head the Convention finally had to be made. Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung accounts for the decisive events:
As the Belgian host Guy Verhofstadt declared his intention to put forth a proposal, Chirac quickly broke in and appealed, immediately supported by Schröder, for his favourite Giscard. The Portuguese Antonio Guterres attempted once again to bring Delors into consideration. Then the conversation was […] deadlocked for a long while as there was no consensus over Giscard. […] Finally, Prime Minister Verhofstadt conjured up a solution ‘à la belge’: Giscard would be Chairman but ‘surrounded’ as he later put it by two deputies: the former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato and his own predecessor Jean-Luc Dehaene (17/12/01A).
There were no vetoes to this compromise and all other issues regarding the composition and proceedings of the Convention had already been settled. Thus, agreement was reached; the Convention was created and could begin its work in March 2002.
Infamous last words
The preceding account of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s appointment as head of the Convention shows that the Laeken summit was not entirely purged of the bargaining that had so hampered the Nice summit. After the issue of setting up the Convention had been resolved the situation got even worse as the leaders turned to discussing the location of a number of European agencies. This discussion ended in a farce-like exchange of words over the placement of the European Food Authority, and the squabble grew so ugly that Guy Verhofstadt decided to end the meeting without locating the
agencies, thereby leaving the issue to be settled at a future summit. Much to the delight of the
reporters covering the Laeken Council the final exchange was subsequently leaked to the press and a number of articles indulge in extensive reports of the heated exchange.131
The events of the summit’s concluding session lead to some scepticism about what was really achieved at Laeken.132 And the irony of the events is not lost on the reporters,133 as the introductory remarks of an article from The Times illustrate:
131 Tim 16/12/01 and 17/12/01, Guar 17/12/01A+B, FT 17/12/01D+E, Pol 17/12/01B, JP 17/12/01, taz 17/12/01D, SZ 17/12/01B+E, Tim 18/12/01, BT 18/12/01, CD 20/12/01.
132 JP 17/12/01, Pol 17/12/01B, Tim 17/12/01, Guard 17/12/01A, SZ 17/12/01E, Tim 18/12/01, CD 20/12/01.
133 In the Danish coverage attention is paid to a further ironic twist, namely, that the agreement on the declaration that is to bring more openness to the EU was reached in secrecy (Inf 15/12/01, JP 15/12/01A, BT 15/12/01).
It speaks volumes for all that is wrong with the direction of the European Union that its leaders could engage in a bitter row as to where a European food safety agency might be located while cheerfully endorsing a major constitutional review with only the minimum dissent. It is as if those who founded the United States had spent hours arguing where some tea might be dumped in Boston Harbour and had ignored details of the Declaration of Independence (18/12/01).
However, the lasting impression is a hesitant optimism as this quote from a Guardian article aptly conveys: “Laeken will be remembered for its exquisite catering and unseemly haggling that left a familiar unpleasant aftertaste. And for creating a tempting menu of ways of providing a better deal – and not a backroom one – for millions of ordinary Europeans” (17/12/01C).
Taking the debate further – the prospect of a European constitution
The ambivalent evaluation of the summit forms the backdrop of the attempts to foresee future developments. The coverage of reactions to the declaration leaves a generally positive
impression.134 Turning to the issue of what the likely outcome of the Convention might be, it is noted that the Laeken Declaration is an expression of the changed terms of debate. “Half a year ago almost no one spoke of the goal of a constitution” (FAZ 14/12/01E), but with the declaration it is recognised as a possibility.
With the acceptance of the Laeken Declaration the agenda of the debate seems to have changed radically, but Cinco Días thinks otherwise: “…[one] should not ignore that the answer to most of the imaginative challenges put forward at Laeken already appear in the speech of the
German foreign minister at the Humboldt University…” (17/12/01). Although other articles also see some of the happenings at Laeken as mere reruns of earlier turns in the debate,135 all agree that Laeken constitutes at least one major novelty: the institutionalisation of the debate in the
Convention. It is also agreed that the value of the Convention lies in the prospect of a deep and wide public debate. This sentiment is aptly summed up in a Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
commentary’s conclusion that: “the Convention is a risky institutional experiment but it brings the great chance of attributing the constitutional foundation of the EU to a ‘grand débat Européen’”
(14/12/01A). However, as another commentary in the same issue of FAZ points out, it remains
134 BT 16/12/01C, EP 16/12/01A,B+D, FAZ 16/12/01B, taz 17/12/01D, SZ 17/12/01A+C, BT 17/12/01, FT 17/12/01A-C, Ind 18/12/01A, FAZ 17/12/01B, EP 18/12/01, FAZ 19/12/01, CD 20/12/01. Only in the English newspapers is there any serious questioning of whether the reform process that is institutionalised by the declaration will be beneficial (Tim 16/12/01A-C). The sentiment expressed in these articles is that “Europe is moving on. And not necessarily in the direction Britain would want” (Tim 16/12/01C).
135 FT 12/12/01, Exp 13/12/01, LF 13/12/01, taz 13/12/01A, FAZ 15/12/01C and 16/12/01B, taz 17/12/01A, SZ 17/12/01C, Tim 18/12/01, CD 29/12/01.
doubtful whether the Convention will be able to spark any serious public debate: “How many citizens can muster the interest, time, and leisure to follow the happenings of the Convention?”
(14/12/01B).