Why EU leaders must resist temptation

Date: 05/12/1996

I T IS often said that the success or failure of a country's EU presidency rests on the outcome of the summit which brings its term at the helm of the European ship to an end.

But if, as feared, next week's summit in Dublin is used by some Union leaders as a platform to air opposing views on the outcome of the current Intergovernmental Conference on EU reform in less than diplomatic terms, thus souring the atmosphere, it will not be the fault of the Irish.

Veterans of previous IGC negotiations believe that Dublin has played a skilful hand in moving the talks on.

When Ireland took over the presidency in July, many EU leaders were publicly lamenting an almost total lack of progress in the talks during the three months after they were launched with much fanfare at the Turin summit in March.

Now, just six months later, consensus is emerging in a surprisingly large number of areas.

Admittedly, this has only been achieved by focusing attention on relatively uncontentious aspects of the reform agenda, leaving those issues most likely to provoke bitter clashes between member states to be thrashed out much later in the process.

But this has proved to be a wise approach, as the furore which greeted Dublin's one serious attempt to establish a basis for agreement on an extension of qualified majority voting by issuing a questionnaire on the subject demonstrated vividly.

By adopting a methodical approach, Dublin has succeeded in clearing a way through the undergrowth which should boost the chances of securing a deal on the most controversial reform issues as the talks enter the final straight.

It can only be hoped that EU leaders on both sides of the argument will avoid saying anything at their summit next week which could undermine the progress already made by their negotiators. Resisting the temptation to do so will not be easy, especially for UK Premier John Major, attending what will be his last European summit before the UK general election (unless the Dutch decide to call an impromptu gathering before June, as many recent presidencies have done).

If Major decides to use Dublin as a vehicle to try to reunite his splintered party by grandstanding over Europe, those in the opposite camp led by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl will be sorely tempted to retaliate with some strong language of their own.

That would be potentially disastrous at such a delicate stage in the negotiations. Much has already been achieved. Sensible discussion of the issues at Dublin could help move the process forward. A bitter war of words would almost certainly have the reverse effect.