At Amsterdam they have managed to make a compromise and consequently the Treaty again remains provisional and unsatisfactory to many, especially as to the reforms necessary for a future enlargement of the EU.
The reason for such modest results is that the Member States had persisted in their own positions, that is, national interests, which could not easily be converged. Hence of vital importance for the research on the future of Europe to analyse the still existing differences of positions on the unsolved or incompletely settled matters.
On the institutional reforms, the point at issue is to adjust the balance between large and small Member States. As regards the composition of the Commission, each Member State would have to in future renounce its own right to nominate a Commissioner and consent to an appointment of all members regardless of nationality, because no other measures could remove the small Member States' anxiety about a possible loss of their influence. In matters such as the Presidency and the reweighting of votes in the Council, one would have difficulty in working out a solution acceptable to all, but come finally to an agreement favourable to large Member States.
A common defence policy would be further developed by applying the “closer cooperation” provisions and at the same time the WEU would be gradually integrated into the EU. The ground for this argument is the fact that Germany and France strongly want to do so and get support for their conception from most of the Member States.
To sum up: a probability could not be excluded that a differentiated integration would be favoured at least transitionally as a way out of a dilemma whether to hold to a unanimity and not to
go
ahead
or to
go
ahead
for the purpose of deepening.
抄録全体を表示