Unavoidable development. This column has consistently highlighted the EU's shift towards a two- speed Europe for quite a long time now. This is not a wish but simply an observation. Today, evolution of this kind is now becoming inevitable and it is increasingly acknowledged by those who remain faithful to the objectives of deepening Europe and strengthening European unity. The more the EU expands, the greater the number of member states that do not want to participate in this progress and the new projects, or that are unable to do so. Rejecting the two-speed Europe would in practice mean giving up on all further developments.
This is the problem with the single currency, which is currently sharpening differences and separating eurozone countries from those that do not wish to take part in it (United Kingdom, Denmark and, for the time being, Sweden), or which do not fulfil the necessary conditions. Other domains exist where the effect would be similar. The fact of the matter is that the ambitions and leanings of member states are not uniform. “Differentiation” was in fact foreseen and it is not by chance that the Lisbon Treaty includes enhanced cooperation open to all those that wish to participate in it, as well as specific provisions that open the way to military cooperation and other developments that do not obtain unanimous support.
The real challenge in the Hungarian affair. Another unexpected element can be added to the equation because it was not foreseen: national elections and the election of a “Eurosceptic” government. This column has always attempted (a little too much sometimes) to be understanding in this kind of thing because one wants to avoid criticising the choice made by voters. The choice needs to be respected, even when one regrets the choice made. I wanted to highlight potentially positive aspects of Eurosceptic ministers in Community work and debates because, by understanding Europe better, they could partially be converted to supporting the European project. The Hungarian case is different because the government in Budapest can be criticised for having made very real infringements to Community laws and commitments. Appropriate procedures have begun and the Hungarian prime minister has addressed the European Parliament and expressed his intention to correct the mistakes (see the following pages). The Hungarian affair, however, will not ultimately be resolved through legal compromises because the real challenge concerns the Treaty of Trianon, which a century ago contributed to scattering the Hungarian identity. In my opinion, the most important decision made by Viktor Orban was to give the right of vote to Hungarians that normally live in Romania or elsewhere. On other aspects, Orban would be prepared to co-operate because he needs the EU financially. Nonetheless, he will remain stuck in the second speed of a two-speed Europe.
The priority objective is sometimes forgotten. The most important question is that of whether the most recent member states and current candidate countries are aware of the priority objective in European construction. This was and remains the definitive reconciliation between countries that tore themselves apart during the last century in the most cruel and destructive conflicts in the history of humanity. The divergences and disagreements about one or other problem being discussed are inevitable but almost insignificant in comparison to the original objective. Certain candidate countries, however, do not at all give the impression that they have understood. The feeling we get, rather, is that some of those that are knocking on the EU's door have ulterior motives and are mainly concerned with: a) strengthening their position with regard to their neighbours (thanks to “their” commissioner in Brussels, “their” place on the Council and “their” MEPs at the European Parliament); b) entering the Schengen area, with the advantages of free movement and the right of residency; and c) benefiting from EU budget support. These attitudes do not justify accession.
The exit door is always open. Even member states, however, including some of the founding countries, sometimes give the impression that they have forgotten what belonging to the EU really means. Certain polls indicate that half or almost half the population would like to leave. I do not believe in the effectiveness of an information and propaganda exercise. It would be more appropriate to look at which member states would like to leave the Union and facilitate this operation. I repeat: the EU is not a prison; the doors are always open to those that wish to leave. Obviously, border controls will be more complicated and a visit from one country to another will involve changing currency, a work permit for abroad and perhaps having to wait several years. But these would just be modest complications in our daily lives and it will not be the scrapping of the Erasmus programme that will discourage young people from opting for national autonomy.
I do not in fact believe that member states will choose to go down this road. It was my way of responding to the wave of hostility against European unity, which sometimes has a rather ignoble reek to it. (FR/transl.fl)