Crucial for recovery. A two-speed Europe is not only an objective reality, it is also a condition for European integration to be re-launched (see this column yesterday). In the absence of “two speeds”, the road towards the model of Europe to which most member states aspire would be blocked, because of the reticence expressed by member states that do not want this model, that are not able to respect its rules, or that prefer the way of national autonomy. This was planned, moreover - the treaties in force would not contain so many formulas allowing enhanced cooperation and other similar mechanisms if the authorities responsible had not taken into consideration the reticence which is effectively shown. Certain countries want to consolidate and strengthen Community integration while others oppose it (or can't follow it). And so those which want to go forward must do so among themselves.
In order for this reality of two speeds to be acceptable and positive, two conditions are necessary: (1) national identities must be respected; (2) and the door to greater integration must be open to all member states. These conditions are confirmed by numerous examples. Let me recall some.
Jacques Delors, or respect for national identities. This respect has long bothered the most well known of the European Commission presidents. European unity must, in his opinion, respect “faithfulness to our nation, to our homeland”. It must take account of the “vital imperative of preserving our nations as the place of our roots. … Citizens must find strength and courage in their national traditions”.
Delors thus rejected the notion of a United States of Europe, which to him suggested the existence of a supranational super-state, and he chose the formula “Federation of nation states”. The federal structure allows the EU to be a whole to the outside, but “without weakening the national State and the internal democracy of the States”.
In his authorised commentary, Gaetane Ricard-Nihoul, concluded that if the member states do not agree, “a group of States must push forward in the adventure” (see EUROPE 10657).
Reminder of Giscard d'Estaing's formula. I could repeat the same exercise with regard to the position of Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who was just as explicit as Jacques Delors - indeed, even more radical. He not only considered a two speed Europe as inescapable, but had already designed in detail a specific institutional structure for managing the eurozone and separate from the already existing Community institutions - a “Council of the euro” at the level of heads of state and government; a specific secretary general; monitoring of respect for commitments in public finance, organised by the Council of the euro and ratified by national parliaments (see EUROPE 10649).
Let's not wait for all countries to agree. I could go on with quotations ad infinitum. The positions of the member states are not uniform, but the need to act without waiting for a general consensus on progress in integration is considered inescapable. Only last month German Chancellor Angela Merkel affirmed the need for a political union “which does not necessarily have to be made up of 27; those who are in a monetary union must become closer”. French President Francois Hollande said in London: “We must design a Europe at several speeds, each at its own pace, each taking what it wants from the Union”. To tell the truth this seems excessive and dangerous.
Let's not forget the importance and the range of the realisations which will be found in the framework of enhanced cooperation, which in practice will materialise into a two-speed Europe. For example, the financial transaction tax (which some member states reject) could one day finance a large part of Community expenditure, not to mention whole domains entering into voluntary realisations, like military cooperation.
Objective differences. What should we say about objective differences between the ambitions and possibilities of the member states and accession countries? The considerations already laid out in EUROPE 10649 must be completed and updated. A few member states, like Romania and in part Hungary, imply that their wish would be to be freed as much as possible from European rules and monitoring. And let's not forget the situation of the countries in the queue - Kosovo, for which several member states contest the very existence; Serbia, ever more radical against Kosovo's autonomy; Montenegro, for which accession to the EU will soon be negotiated; Macedonia, for which official denomination will sooner or later be defined and will thus become an accession candidate. Even the fiction of accession negotiations with Turkey keeps dragging on. And other candidate countries will knock on the door as soon as they have fulfilled the conditions.
Who seriously believes that all these countries are capable of taking part in the most serious integration projects? In these conditions, how could a two-speed Europe formula be given up?
Homage to the Federalists, who were respectable but unrealistic. As I mentioned in the last edition of EUROPE, I have a great deal of respect for European federalist positions and initiatives, which reject the hypothesis of two speeds and fight for a federal Europe. Jean-Guy Giraud's arguments certainly bear weight. He denounces the danger that a several speed Europe may progressively become a “Europe à la carte” in which each country would chose the aspects it wants - a “European cooperation on a case by case basis”. Such a project in his opinion represents “the disintegration of the concept and the acquis communautaire, and would be a return to intergovernmental cooperation à la carte”. In the face of these deviations, the federalists argue for “a reform and re-launch of the original global project, by means of a constituent Convention which would propose a revision of the Treaties or a new treaty”.
Mr Giraud stresses that the reform could come into force despite the possible opposition of a small minority of the 27 member states, and he recalls that the European Parliament could take the initiative and launch the procedure he describes.
I appreciate these intentions, but I notice that we would need several years for such a project to come about and I will limit myself to summarising in two points what I have tried to put across to my readers: (a) the current problems are urgent; (b) a two-speed Europe is not a personal invention of mine -it already exists. (FR/transl.fl)