Repercussions from attitude displayed by United Kingdom. The comments made about the United Kingdom's refusal to participate in progress towards European unity (see this column in EUROPE 10448) are in no way judgmental. It is an observation that does not at all reduce admiration for this country's incalculable contribution to global civilisation, particularly in the areas of freedom and democracy. London has just been described (by a British publication, it has to be said) as the most lively and important city in the world. This, however, has nothing at all to do with historic observation that the UK has not seen European unity favourably, and initially refused to take part in it. People often cite Winston Churchill's position in favour of unity, but this is just a myth - the texts on this clearly indicate that he was referring to mainland Europe. His vision of the Western world was based on three pillars: the United States of America, the United States of Europe and the Commonwealth. Developments subsequently turned out differently, particularly because of the disappearance of the USSR and the gradual self-determination of Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth now appears to be more apparent than real. London initially refused to take part in the European Community. It did in fact join the Community a few years later but rejected the hypothesis of this Community becoming a sort of confederation. The UK is still outside any innovations made in this direction. We have simply highlighted the situation and the consequences resulting from it.
The repercussions stemming from the refusal to participate in developments such as the single currency, the Schengen area and European defence have been particularly significant for the UK itself and it has been excluded from a growing number of European decisions. Bringing about strengthened management of the euro and European economic governance places the British on the sidelines of European decision-making on economic issues. It is not hard to imagine the sharp differences which will result from the new European financial perspectives that cover funding for cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy. And what should be said about Europe's increasing shift towards the extension of common competencies to new domains? In certain member states, this sudden impetus does not result from a conversion to supranational principles but from the observation that it is impossible, in practice, to manage the single currency and economic governance jointly whilst maintaining national autonomy everywhere else. It is now the moment for supporters of EU supranational policies to relaunch the ideas and objectives of Altiero Spinelli and the federalists.
Multi-speed Europe. For those who could be defined as the realists, the driving force is the observation of what results from supranational management of the euro and, over time, supranational management of economic policies in the eurozone. Ms Merkel no longer rejects eurobonds a priori. She wants them to be subject to the effective control of national budgets by Community procedures. This does not yet mean creating a supranational government, as certain players are advocating, but (I will quote Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of Eurogroup) “economic guidance based on tough and strict rules… by increasing sanctions against eurozone countries that fail to apply the rules, for whom immediate sanctions are necessary”. The model of Europe that will result from this will cover an increasing number of domains, which the United Kingdom rejects. It is increasingly common to read sentences such as the following: “This illusion of a single speed Europe must be ended… we need an institutional framework adapted to a multi-speed Europe” (Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council of Foreign Relations).
Towards a revision of the treaty. Demands to revise the treaty are increasing. For the federalists, the views expressed by Angela Merkel have brought the question of this revision, which just a short time ago appeared totally utopian, to the centre of the debate. Jean-Guy Giraud, the president of the Union Fédéraliste Européenne-France, sent MEPs an “open letter” which sees the principle of this revision as already unavoidable and raises the following practical questions: (a) Schedule: opening the procedure in 2014 when the new EP and new Commission are set up; (b) Procedure: development of a draft by the institutions, organisation of a Convention to establish the draft to be submitted to an Intergovernmental Conference, ratification in the two years that follow; (c) Contents: in particular, European treasury bonds (eurobonds) and the European finance minister would be created, and Andrew Duff's suggestion to get rid of the requirement for unanimous ratification would be taken into consideration.
Mr Giraud considers that the prospect in itself of such a revision of the treaty would re-establish public confidence and confidence in the financial markets. The project has now been launched. (F.R./transl.fl)