Sections
Mini Sections
Head of Section, responsible for high-performance computing and data handling
Senior Manager, European Electricity Policy
Senior Manager, European Regulation
EU Affairs - Online Media Sales Manager
Senior Media Officer / Head of Press relations Team
Policy advisor Economics and Finance
Consultant (Scientist) - EU FP7 Project 'SafeWind'
Psychiatrist, Public Health Expert or Clinical Psychologist
Energy Engineers and Economists (fixed-term contract)
Mettre une annonceJulia De Clerck-Sachsse, du Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), recommande à la présidence finlandaise de prendre diverses mesures afin de faire avancer l'Europe malgré les conclusions assez floues du Conseil européen de juin.
The European Council has left some central questions concerning the future of the EU Constitution unanswered, according to Ms. De Clerck-Sachsse, a research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels.
For example, "Will ratification proceed? If yes, how, and what will be done in France and the Netherlands? And if not, then what are possible alternatives?" She points out that their decision to adopt a 'two-track approach', combining debate with clear results, is somewhat weakened by Chancellor Schüssel's comment that "there is no absolute consensus on how we should deliver."
The Finnish presidency thus finds itself without a real mandate in terms of dealing with the Constitution, according to Ms. De Clerck-Sachsse, so the issue will have to be left up to the coming German presidency. In the meantime, she notes that the Finnish presidency has backed off of the idea of the Constitution, instead referring to a 'Europe of projects' in their preliminary agenda. However, she feels continued debate and concrete results by the Finnish presidency could be "a significant step out of the crisis."
Though the Council conclusions contain few concrete initiatives, Ms. De Clerck-Sachsse has some suggestions on ways forward for the next six months.
For Ms. De Clerck-Sachsse, concrete policy initiatives should not completely replace a discussion of the Constitutional treaty.