All's moving faster than expected. The landscape surrounding the forthcoming institutional reform of the EU is no longer what it was on the eve of the Helsinki Summit, at a time of great disenchantment, when things seemed to favour a mini-reform that, for a Europe with 28 members, or more, would have meant disintegration towards a Union without ambition or ability to act. During the Summit itself, on the fringe of the Summit and after the Summit, declarations and stances multiplied proving that certain heads of government had become aware of the dangers threatening European construction. Nothing has been decided, nothing can be taken for granted, but the discussions on Europe's future have finally entered the debating chamber at the highest level. Following years of silence and evasion, nothing may now prevent the real issues being raised, and answers provided.
Too much optimism on our part? Unfounded hope? That remains to be seen. We wish to convince no one with claims of principle, but turn the reader's attention to the issues as they are slowly beginning to build up (not, in parenthesis, without being surprised at the lack of feed-back aroused by certain stances that nevertheless open the doors to the future). To some, the debate has been open for some years now. We need only cite Jacques Delors, always ahead of his time, or the book by Philippe de Schoutheete memorable by the quotation of Seneque on the impossibility of anyone benefiting from fair winds if they do not know in which direction they are heading: "irnirantati quem portus petat nullus ventus suus est". With much less authority, we too in this section turned to the issue in some detail last year. The new fact to emerge is the appearance of the debate among politicians. In Helsinki, the President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine stressed that "all the reforms demanded by enlargement not yet identified or undertaken before accession of new Members will later be more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out". And (without fear of pronouncing the words "cultural integration" regarding the applicant countries) she stressed the need not to dilute the Union's cohesion, identity, solidarity and ability to act. Too vague? No doubt, and yet already significant.
One phrase to underline three times more so than once. Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker went much further. Having denounced the "disastrous spectre of a free-trade area" into which Europe risked rescinding after enlargement, he referred to the parade of "enhanced cooperaton" between Member States prepared to go further in integration. "Flexibility" as currently exists is not operational, and Mr. Juncker proposed that "eight States, whatever the total number of Member States, should be able to form an avant-garde of integration, without the others being able to prevent them through a vote". (1) This phrase needs underlining three times more so than once, as it exceeds the vague statements and affirmations of principle, introducing into the debate at the level of Heads of Government a suggestion, formula even, around which the debate within the IGC could develop beyond the currently scheduled narrow agenda. Also as important, revolutionary even, the statements by Jacques Delors, by which "the avant-garde should have their own institutions, so as to avoid any confusion" (2).
Even Jacques Chirac… Without being as precise as the Luxembourg Prime Minister, the French President spoke along the same lines, which is very significant, as Jacques Chirac was among the Heads of State in favour of a limited agenda for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference, so as not to jeopardise its conclusion by the end of the year. It was before the European Parliament that he explained himself, two days after the Summit, with greater clarity: "the site opened in Helsinki is a necessary one, but we know that it is only a stage (….). We shall have to deepen our reflections on the long-term consequences of enlargement. Should we not consider implementing more flexibility in our progress, like we did with Schengen, then with the euro?" (3) This reference to Schengen and the euro seems clear enough: in an enlarged Europe, the possibility must be left open for those countries that want to move forward to be able to do so, leaving the door open to others. Need one be reminded that Schengen began with a fairly limited number of countries? And that the single currency would not exist today if one had to wait for all Fifteen to reach agreement? It thus seems clear that the French President is not only thinking of possible future progress without new Member States, but, should the case arise, without one or other of the current ones?
Other Heads of Government have been less explicit and less precise, but several of them have placed emphasis on the "open" nature of the agenda of the IGC (Mr. Verhofstadt, Mr. D'Alema) and Chancellor Schroeder has emphasised that the idea of flexibility "remains on the table". Let's be clear about the words: the word "flexibility" is only the latest linguistic quirk of the concept that in the past has known many definitions: the "hard core", Europe/power (to be created alongside Europe/area), "enhanced coopetation", the open avant-garde. This concept is now part of the subject of the reflection of the European Council. In Helsinki, Romano Prodi summarised the situation as follows: the door is open to all other subjects than the "Amsterdam leftovers", whereas before "the door was closed".
This is the way the new Presidency of the Council sees things. The Portuguese Minister of State for European Affairs, Francisco Seixas da Costa declared (4) that an IGC confined to the Amsterdam leftovers was not desirable: what was needed, was a "broad discussion on the remoulding of the institutional architecture", by creating a legal structure that suited those wanting to move ahead, while leaving the door open to those who preferred to remain behind. He proved that the Portuguese Presidency was aware of the stakes, by adding: "this is possibly the only model that will enable te Union to survive". And he even raised the question to which Mr. Juncker had provided the answer, ie., "the minimum number of Member States to required for enhanced cooperation". This is a lot for the Presidency, whose institutional duty is to take account of the position of all Member States (in Lisbon itself, the British Foreign Secretary reaffirmed that the IGC should go no further than the Amsterdam leftovers…) The Portuguese Prime Minister used terms a little more cautious than those of the minister of State for European affairs (5), but the substance is there.
The idea of alternative solutions. Within this lively context, a very significant additional nuance has been added by Commissioners Chris Patten and Verheugen who, in practice, asked: can one be sure that, on reflection, EU accession will be seen by all potential applicant countries as the best solution? The best adapted to their requirements and desires? The idea of alternative solutions necessarily presupposes different effective and satisfactory solutions. The President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine raised the question explicitly (regarding Turkey but broadening it to a general level): we must ask ourselves "whether there are other possibilities to European integration than membership?" regretting that, so far, "no one has had the courage to deepen this debate". Debate that is linked to the "limits of the future Europe" (the President of the Commission and other politicians have asked for the European Union borders to be defined. Is this really the right solution? We doubt it, and shall turn to the issue in this section next week.
For the time being, our goal is not to discuss one hypothesis or another, but simply to prove that the debate is underway at the highest level. A difficult debate, no doubt. At least two Heads of Government, Tony Blair and Jose-Maria Aznar, remain opposed to discussions within the IGC being extended; and no doubt they are not the only ones. It is possible, likely even, that the development towards a purely free-trade area - defined as disastrous spectre by Jean-Claude Juncker - and intergovernmental cooperation largely rid of well-defined supranational elements on the whole corresponds to the more or less unavowed wishes of some of them. If the debate is well engaged, if the European Commission's January document (on which Michel Barnier is actively working) is clear and courageous, it will be difficult for anyone to wriggle out of the issue. In tomorrow's EUROPE, we shall try to set out why the reform, as now begun, notably regarding the European Commission, would lead straight to the dilution of the European Union, and why the formula of constructive avant-garde is the only possible development to safeguard a certain idea of Europe.
Ferdinando Riccardi
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(1) See special bulletin "Helsinki European Council" of 12 December 1999;
(2) See Jacques Delors' speech before the Aspen Institute in our bulletin of 3 and 4 January, pp.3/4;
(3) See speech by Jacques Chirac before the European Parliament in our bulletin of 15 December 1999, pp.5/6;
(4) See our bulletin of 7 January, pp.3/4,
(5) pages 5/6 of this bulletin.