Venturing to be clear-cut. Whatever the misadventures of the euro and the uncertainty over its future, there is, in my view, one unavoidable question regarding all aspects of the future of Europe: what will the EU of tomorrow be? Its composition, its structure, its functioning? With everything seeming to be up in the air at the moment, this could seem like an inappropriate question, but now is precisely the time we need to be clear; those which intend to remain faithful to an ambitious Europe must make this clear and suit their actions to their words.
Battle already over. “We must not fear a two-speed Europe: it is already a reality”, Jörg Asmussen, a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, said very recently (see EUROPE 10658). I unreservedly share this point of view. The ideological battle does not exist, in my view, because it is already over: the two speeds exist, they are a fact of our everyday life. I have every respect for the fight being fought by the Federalists who challenge this statement, who are fighting for a new European treaty and presenting attractive and well-organised projects for a new Convention or a Treaty covering all member states. I greatly admire them and I do not rule it out that they could end up triumphing; but in my opinion, their plans (to which I will return tomorrow) overlook current reality and, in particular, the need to act quickly and to allow those wishing to do so to move forward.
With this in mind, it is my belief that a very short observation is sufficient to confirm the reality summed up by Mr Asmussen. Any country wishing to move forward must do so without hesitation, because the number of member states going in the opposite direction is tending to rise. Some are openly distancing themselves from Community disciplines. We could cite Hungary, Romania and a few others: their governments, and therefore their populations, are trying by all means to do as they see fit, by moving away from Community integration. And what can we say of the planned waves of enlargement? And of the accession candidates which, all evidence indicates, will not be in a position to come on board the most audacious projects, when the time comes?
As far as I'm concerned, the reason for this is quite plain: we either have to give up the idea of developing European integration, or accept that the most ambitious member states must be allowed to make progress among themselves.
That is what I call two-speed Europe. It exists and what's more, it is explicitly laid down in the Treaties, in various forms.
The actual position of the United Kingdom. The most striking ambiguity concerns the British attitude. It is often said that London wants to leave the EU. This is not true. The texts show that the objective is quite the opposite - that of a united Europe, but in which differentiation between member states is allowed.
Mr Cameron knows his voters and is aware that most of them would be in favour of coming out of the EU; this is why this eventuality crops up frequently. But what you need to read is the statement of the British Minister of State for Europe, David Lidington. This is how it starts: “There is no doubt that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to be a full member of the European Union. Our country is determined to play a leading role in a solid and stable EU.” He goes on to explain: “the EU gives us access to a market of half a billion consumers, within which we can do business, travel and work freely”. The EU makes possible common actions in fields such as climate change and allows Europe to make its voice heard in the world, in favour of democracy and individual liberty. But in certain areas, the UK intends to remain on the sidelines. London understands the reasons why the countries of the eurozone intend to step up budgetary and economic integration, and is not opposed to this process, whilst making sure that the integrity of the single market is maintained.
Mr Lidington's conclusion: “This process should lead to the construction of an EU of variable geometry, allowing the member states to work together in certain areas, without there being a single way of acting. …. We must clearly determine when decisions should be taken at national level and when it is better to act at European level.” As regards the analyses and discussions underway in the UK, “there is no question that the outcome of this exercise will be the UK disengaging or withdrawing from the Union”.
That is what I call two-speed Europe.
(FR/transl.fl)