European treaty. Legal experts have an agreement

(B2) The information fell a little after 16 p.m. on the mobile phones of EU journalists. An SMS from the Portuguese Presidency informing that the legal experts of the 27 Member States had finished their work on the new European treaties and that a new text would be ready shortly (it will be made public). This closes a round of well-conducted discussions (see my article a few weeks ago, a bit anticipatory, I admit...). A final meeting - lasting half an hour - is scheduled for Wednesday 3 October at 15 p.m. for each expert to formally give their agreement (after consulting their capital). The text will only be made officially available to the public on Friday.

A very tactical announcement
This advance announcement when we know nothing of the agreement is surprising. It's actually a very trading tactic. The Portuguese have somehow whistled the end of recess. And a capital that disagrees will now have to express it publicly and strongly. Which will be difficult. Of course, some countries will grumble, express themselves publicly (the Poles). But that should not normally prevent them from formally approving the text. Unless...

A look back at this exercise with multiple challenges.
The practice of legal experts from the 27 Member States (2 per State) was multiple. On the one hand, it involved rereading the text, presented in July, to see whether it complied with the mandate agreed upon by the Heads of State and Government in June. Each State was thus able to present its requests. Some were rejected without firing a shot: the place of the European Central Bank, the Ionina compromise for the Poles, the Euro for the Bulgarians, the membership criteria for the Austrians, etc. Others were accepted after more or less lengthy discussions.
On the other hand, it was a question of detecting the errors or inaccuracies of the text: an "S" there in a Treatise, a comma here, intertitles too much... etc. “It's quite boring, quite long work,” confides one participant. "Our group did not have a really creative role", he continues, as if with regret.

The problem was not where we thought!
If on the Charter of Fundamental Rights or on citizenship (request of the European Parliament) an agreement was quickly reached, it is the question of the British which has given rise to the most discussion. Several meetings, and many bilateral ones, were devoted to the question of knowing under what conditions the United Kingdom (joined by Ireland) had the possibility of no longer participating in certain policies (Schengen, asylum and immigration) in which they participate already, optionally - it's simple no! - and the control of the Court of Justice of the EC on the Justice Home Affairs sector (read the british pebble).