Jacques Delors was right all along. The disappointment, the disillusionment and the occasional indignation of Jacques Delors are all justified. Virtually everything being set in place to try and save the euro, with some delay and in the face of well-known problems and obstacles, was laid down in the initial plan for the single currency which he wrote, laying priority emphasis on drawing a parallel between the monetary and economic planks of the EMU, as its name indeed suggests: economic and monetary union. This dual nature was compromised from the word go - the image of a two-legged creature with a limp circled the globe. Jacques Delors' battle is far from over, because there are still a great many aspects which are not to his liking; but it has already seen results as, on many issues, the EU now seems to be turning in the direction he had always called for and which would have saved Europe a lot of the detours and difficulties it is now bogged down in. I will come back to several recent stances taken by Mr Delors.
Possibility of global relaunch? For my part, I am also trying to look on the bright side of the current crisis, a side which does indeed exist, because the troubles of the eurozone - and the risk that it will fall in on itself - are leading to a transfer of competencies and powers to Community procedures and institutions, to which the principal member states would simply not have agreed under different circumstances. If we overcome the current crisis, the eurozone will have a range of disciplines and instruments that would previously have been unimaginable. The large countries, which initially practised national autonomy, are now the first to call for strict rules and an obligation to observe them. After the texts approved by the European Parliament and Council, if what the Commission proposed or launched last week (creation of eurobonds, obligatory budgetary discipline) had existed, this would have avoided the mess we have seen in Greece and elsewhere. The eurozone could end up coming out of the crisis stronger. If it does, European integration as a whole could get a new lease of life, well beyond the economic and monetary aspect.
A compact Union, or a two-speed Union? Admittedly, the above is by no means guaranteed. There are optimists and pessimists, moderates and radicals. The mistaken - or deceptive - attitude consists of affecting the belief of being right. Everybody defends their own views and preferences. The only certainty is the transformation of the current EU and therefore the very nature of the future EU: a compact Union, or a two-speed Union? The dichotomy is becoming increasingly marked: it is, moreover, provided for by the Treaty itself, with its enhanced cooperation and optional participation in it, and it is shored up by the increasingly clear intentions of certain member states to revise the current Treaty. Several governments believe that the fundamental separation is determined by a state's participation in the eurozone, the management of which would become broadly autonomous and the sole preserve of its member countries. The other member states, led by Poland, vigourously oppose this. The UK stance is quite specific: Mr Cameron has said that a significant chunk of the Conservative party has called, in the event of the Treaty being revised, for certain powers transferred to Brussels to be brought back to London. Mr Sarkozy is reported to have reacted by suggesting a specific Eurozone Treaty!
Even if we leave to one side the scenario of a separate Treaty, it is clear that the revision of the current Treaty is already raising complex issues. Germany and France intend to put forward joint proposals, but they are by no means in agreement over everything; and we are all aware of the tendency of the European Movements to grasp the opportunity of any revision to include institutional reform. In any case, it is clear that the management of the eurozone is spilling over into other common policies, as indicated by the debates on the cohesion policy, with the hypothesis of suspending the payment of Community funds for any member states not observing their commitments in terms of national budgetary balance.
Community or intergovernmental? This brings us to another fundamental row, over the Community or intergovernmental nature of the current stewardship of the EU. It is a question of understanding whether current developments will protect the autonomy and importance of the institutions or if, in practice, the institutions have left the management of Europe and its policies up to the governments. My own view is that the extreme positions are too doctrinaire and reality far less black and white.
Over the next few days, I will be commenting on the recent stances taken by Jacques Delors and other figures.
(FR/transl.fl)