Pour aujourd’hui et pour demain
This book, published to mark one hundred years since the birth of Jacques Delors (1925-2023), is a compilation of transcripts of the most emblematic speeches made by the man who shaped a community that became European Union in the course of the ten years (1985-1995) of his presidency of the European Commission. These texts, put together and introduced by Sébastien Maillard, dating back to an earlier period, as long ago as the 1960s, and some from the more recent past of the 2000s, reveal the “main thrust of his thoughts on his favourite subjects”, as Pascal Lamy puts it in his preface to the book (our translation throughout).
“What strikes one when reading them is that they remain incredibly topical several decades after they were written, and that the words and ambitions of the man who wrote them chime with the major challenges we face today”, the European Commissioner writes. “This is the case, for instance, with his thoughts on the equation of modern times, which consists of balancing social, economic and environmental sustainability, and the solution to which is based on a collective choice of a balance between competition, cooperation and solidarity”, he adds, going on to stress that “it is also the case with the meaning he ascribes to the Europe of the Europeans. When he defined it as a “Federation of nation-states”, or when he stressed the choice between “survival or decline”, a phrase I found two pessimistic and which I did not understand until much later on, when the threats that now surround us came along. The survival of a way of living of a community comprising a commitment to democracy, to the separation of powers, to the proper protection of human rights, to a social market economy reconciled with nature, the provident State, access to ongoing education and training, health care and culture for all. The survival of an identity that is shaped by economic power, social cohesion and a form of European spirit, without all of which we would be left behind. Included in this are plans for common defence, which he was one of the very first to outline, during his tour of the European capitals in summer 1984, and again in 1995, concerning the creation of an energy community”.
The passages below, selected from many other possible options, illustrate these points:
Time and how it accelerates. “Production mode was projected onto living mode, which became a kind of copy of the former. Concentration was reflected in urban growth: Taylorism brought into everyday life, because of the very constraints that were placed upon it, time spent at work, time spent travelling, time spent at school, time spent watching television…; massification buries man and woman in a universe in which traditional links were broken or petered out and in which the manipulation of advertising and the media increasingly dominated. The universe of ostentatious consumption extended to ideas and, in particular, to the standards distilled by the power of the State and the power of money”. These words are more accurate than ever in the age of the Internet, social platforms and social networks and the misinformation they bring with them, the rise of teleworking and breaking the barriers that still subsisted between professional life and work life, or between the public and the private. The massification Jacques Delors spoke about has continued inexorably, while little account has been taken of his excellent recommendations: “let us stop for just a moment in our febrile activities or pretences of activities and ask ourselves the question: ‘what if we could live in a different way?’ Get back some time to meditate, discuss things with other people, get involved personally in the field of social and political activities. To choose our time and put it to better use in line with our own social logical or affective pace. Finally exist! Stop being a (barely) thinking robot, a puppet of opinion polls, a passive spectator in the greatest spectacle of the world, that which is offered to us by the television. Throw nothing away, but use everything differently, on the basis of this desire to live differently”.
Continuous training. “Lifelong training is there to give [workers] the taste for a different life, for harder and more interesting work, for promotion. This could be why some people consider it explosive and therefore want to limit its scope to a kind of social infirmary for workers struggling to adapt (…). Under increasingly widespread social pressure due to dominant institutions such as governing techno-structures imprisoned in the movements of public opinion that has been made a ‘laughable queen’ by opinion polls, thirsting for what he most lacks, time to live, to love, to dream, to pray, contemporary man is trapped by his extraordinary material success. Questioning the model of growth, the archaic spasms of opulent societies, maintaining areas of material and moral poverty are illustrations, but not the only ones, of this crisis of the world today. Lifelong education is a genuine opportunity, a serious asset to allow us to start to break free from the system in question. Indubitably, negotiated education, the obligatory exchange between the trainer and trainee, open the door to spontaneity, to culture learned somewhere other than at school. Everybody, moreover, becomes aware of their specific situation, the abusive nature of their conditioning, of the role they could play in the communities to which they belong: the company they work for, the local community, the family, the social group, etc. From there may begin a process of putting back together the individual on the ruins of the man in pieces, the man cast aside”.
Education. “To try to give younger generations and the very young everything they need to tackle the constant and the ever-changing, we have proposed to base education on four pillars: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. By calling for these pillars to be inseparable from each other, by refusing, despite the very considerable atmospheric pressure, despite criticism, by refusing to support the link between education and the employment market. By being convinced that only a broader view of education will give everybody both the means to make the most of themselves and their own talents and to live in the 21st century”. (From a speech made in 1997 about a report commissioned by UNESCO)
Solidarity and citizenship. “Beware of indifference. The weakening of citizenship is connected to the disappearance of the social connection. Beware of the fragmentation of social cohesion. Some of the ills of our societies are closely linked to this, such as drugs, petty crime or other ills, or even the difficulties for our teachers or education policies in general. But the European model is based on solidarity and solidarity cannot be decreed from above. It is something that is experienced. It is not just a matter for governments or political parties. To maintain solidarity between people who are active and those who are not, between the well and the sick, between those who have a job and those who do not. If we are to have equal opportunities in education and family policies, we must have a society that supports this. And not just a guardian institution created 50 years ago and going about its work amid general indifference. We come back to citizenship, because this model cannot live unless it is supported by active citizens, in harmony between competition and cooperation and also in harmony between the market, the role of the public institutions and social dialogue. The Economic and Social Committee is the symbol of this social dialogue. Today, our systems are just as threatened by those who want them to fail as by those who want them to survive, but without agreeing to any adaptation. This means that our European model of society is coming up against ultra-liberal dogmatism on the one hand and the conservatism of many of those claiming to defend it on the other”. Further down, the President of the Commission (addressing a meeting of the Economic and Social Committee in September 1993) adds: “what is at stake, socially? I spoke in favour of a system of the provident State, but it looks like a basket with a hole in it today, because how can you explain the fact that there are 40 to 50 million people living in poverty in the Community under such an advanced social system? Our system is a basket with a hole in it, at the expense of the poorest and least fortunate. Let us say it out loud and change it”.
Generosity and power. The vision of the fathers of the Treaty of Rome is not outdated. “I would like to remind you of what they wanted in three phrases: they wanted to reconcile and pacify, to unite in order to survive, and to personalise Europe. How far have we got with those things today? To reconcile and pacify, let us take a look at our doorstep. The rise of danger and risks, the denial of the other, xenophobia on our doorstep, barbarous acts in the former Yugoslavia, is reconciling and pacifying no longer relevant as an objective? Unite in order to survive. Allow me to observe what happens whenever we stand in disarray. In Europe today, look at the experience of the last three years, both economically and in terms of foreign policy. And finally, to personalise Europe. This is a question of faith. Europe has given the world so much and yet it does not wish to preach to the world today. Ours is a common heritage in diversity. Are we going to allow it to disappear? That is why, in my opinion, the secret of our success remains power and generosity”. This extract comes from the same speech 1993, but try rereading it replacing the former Yugoslavia with Ukraine and the Middle East.
Federal Europe. “You are going to be very surprised, but when they say things like that, common interests, common purpose, common exercise of sovereignty whenever it is beneficial and no more, they have described – horror of horrors – a federal conception of Europe. Only this will allow us both to unite our strengths, truly to reinforce the nation, to get the citizen involved, because everybody knows exactly what he or she has to do. This is the compass we have to find, along with those who wish to do it and not forgetting that our historical responsibility is to make greater Europe a common house. If we do this, then in my humble opinion the citizen will see what we are about. They will find their role again. They will know how to influence events. They will develop a feeling of belonging without at all diminishing their legitimate sense of patriotism for their own nation. I continue to take the same view as the fathers of the Treaty, who are not yet consigned to the museum, that this is the only path that will keep Europe from marginalisation”.
Geo-economy and autonomy. The following passage can be re-read replacing interest rates with customs duty: “the same reasoning [the speech given by Delors at the plenary session of the European Parliament (of which he was then a member) in February 1981 had just touched upon Japan’s role] also applies to the United States. What is the point of a policy based solely on raising interest rates and disregarding the consequences of these increases, up to 20%, on the rest of the world? Can a country that claims the role of leadership […] over the world afford to do this? Can the Community put up with, resign itself to these spiralling interest rates that are endangering its essence and causing recession in our countries? How long will federal Germany and Europe be prepared to pay the price of hundreds of thousands more people unemployed or American policy that gives no valid results […] in terms of reconstituting a global monetary and economic order? It is not about European egocentrism. Europe must speak with a single voice to face its global responsibilities. It is all very well taking care of the Middle East, it is all very well presenting resolutions on the Middle East, it is all very well to talk about North-South dialogue, to cry crocodile tears over the developing countries. But if we do not use strong language when talking to those who are prosperous and who hold the keys to part of the world’s destiny, and there is no point talking about it. We must start to keep our own houses in order. That is where Europe’s autonomy lies. It is not being inward-looking, it is not protectionism, it is giving ourselves the means to exercise our responsibilities in the world. And that is how I for one will judge the actions of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission”.
EMU and Eurobonds. For economic and monetary union, “we need reinforced integration on that level and in certain social fields, but with the reservations I have already expressed on respecting certain differences. We must create ad hoc instruments for more cooperation and more solidarity: an economic regulatory fund, a programme of aid for innovation and sustainable elements, financial instruments such as Eurobonds. Making reasonable use of Eurobonds would make it possible to help pay for common projects and would create a borrowing and lending market to support the role of the euro. However, as regards efficiency, I feel obliged to touch upon the importance of qualified majority voting. I would like to share with you something one of my superiors, the late and sadly missed Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, said about this: ‘the paralysis caused by the right of veto is not a failing of the Union, it is quite simply a lack of union. The decision-making capacity, and this is the paradox of any union, exists only if we are capable of making a decision when we disagree”.
Police and security. “We are experiencing the temptation to call into question the positions agreed upon and our borders, we are experiencing a rise in fundamentalism, a resurgence of nationalism… How can I neglect to pass on the message communicated to us yesterday by the President of the French Republic? Nationalism equals war [speech at a plenary session of the European Parliament on 19 January 1995, the day after the speech by François Mitterrand that earned him a standing ovation]. Essentially, we must tackle the risks facing the world and which directly or indirectly affect what we have achieved in terms of peace and mutual understanding. The European Union cannot hide from reality, however difficult to pin down. On its eastern flank, on its southern flank, in Africa, in the Middle East, it is expected to have candid and clear positions, to take its responsibilities unequivocally and to act in a way that is consistent with the ideas it espouses”. Jacques Delors goes on to argue that “History has constantly provided us with lessons and warnings. Woe betide anyone who ignores this. Woe betide those who abandon themselves to the enjoyments of consumer society, to nostalgia for a past that has gone or for globalisation that has no conscience! In the face of a future that is full of danger, only the political union of the European nations can allow them not only to defend their legitimate interests, but also to shine in the world, at the service of ideals that have marked the best of European history. Our credibility does not depend only on our grand declarations of principles. It is and will depend on our ability to translate stated objectives into concrete acts in favour of peace, solidarity between peoples, for the respect of human rights. We can achieve this only through an unequivocal pact between those European countries that are prepared to engage and to draw conclusions politically, economically and institutionally”. (Olivier Jehin)
Jacques Delors (transcripts compiled by Sébastien Maillard). Pour aujourd’hui et pour demain (available in French only). Odile Jacob. ISBN: 978-2-4150-1203-8. 294 pages. €24,90