Similar entity to the United States of America? If Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt felt a joint intervention was needed on the situation and the prospects of building Europe, it is because the matter was urgent and that they believed two men, who gave concrete substance to single currency by using the influence of their posts (President of the French Republic and German Chancellor, at the time when the Franco-German couple represented the driving force of the EC) could still have some effect. The conclusion of their "European Lesson", to use the title chosen by Le Figaro (1), can be summarised in a few brief phrases. Thus: the future 30-member Europe cannot have the same ambitions as the original Community. Those who wish to remain faithful to these ambitions and prevent the great dream of European unity from being transformed into a free trade area with "marginal" institutions, must take the initiative to create within the enlarged EU a central group with its own institutions: a ministerial Council and a Parliament of its own. This initiative can only come from the six founding countries of the Community, together with others that wish and are able to have the same destiny, the aim being to create a European entity similar to the United States in America. The fact that Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt reached the same conclusion as Jacques Delors a few months ago should make those who care about the future of the continent think again.
If no-one wants it … Rethinking does not mean nurturing illusions. And I am saying what I think when I say: there is no chance, under present circumstances, that the Delors/Giscard d'Estaing/Schmidt project will come about. For one simple reason: no one wants it, for now, among those who have the power to decide. The European Commission and the European Parliament attach greater importance to safeguarding the EU's territorial and institutional unity, which is understandable. The chairman of the parliamentary committee on constitutional affairs, Giorgio Napolitano, has even toughened this line by extending it to "enhanced cooperation", which must be considered as a "safeguard clause" to be used only if the integration process is "blocked". This met with Parliament approval. Elmar Brok rejected, explicitly, the solution that the decision could now be taken for a small group of countries to go further.
A certain number of Member States are, a priori, opposed to a degree of integration that goes beyond that existing at the present time (and which already seems to them to be excessive for certain aspects). This is the case for Denmark, Sweden, and above all the United Kingdom to which the "European Lesson" devotes a specific paragraph inviting it to come out of its ambiguous attitude. Ambiguous or, for the most part, completely hostile to the original project of the founding countries? If one is to believe Pauline Schapper, lecturer on British civilisation at the University of Orleans, British hostility does not result from the attitude of any particular political movement or government, but goes much deeper. It derives from the traditional "myths" of Great Britain, from its history and geography. For the British, Europe is essentially economic liberalism and intergovernmental political cooperation. Ms Schapper defines the attitude of public opinion as "hostile indifference" and that of part of the press as "frenzied europhobia" (2). The three countries cited consider that the only true EU priority today is enlargement, and that whatever holds it up must be banished. Mainly geographical reasons explain the Danish attitude. But one can be forgiven for asking whether these three countries are motivated, above all, by the idea that the EU with 30 members will automatically slide towards the form of Union that the British have been seeking since 1956 and that the Danish and Swedish authorities had promised their citizens.
Other Member States fear that their participation in the future vanguard will be difficult. Still others consider as a priority the requirement that reform should be concluded for the end of the year, mainly in order to respect the commitment taken with the applicant countries. The latter, for their part, are firmly opposed to any initiative which would take the form either of additional constraints for their accession, or of a new kind of construction from which they would be excluded. As you can see, that makes a lot of people.
It would also be illusory to expect any great change in public opinion. Illusory because the distinction between integration and intergovernmental cooperation is a notion that is still too abstract to stimulate passions, and that it is almost impossible to explain to citizens that the response to these concerns can only be effective at continental level if certain powers are placed in common. The crowds will not be rallied around institutional issues, majority vote in any particular fields or the number of members of the future European Commission.
The choice of a name. Should one conclude that the warning given by the personalities who have made such a contribution to the European adventure amounts to nothing? We are far from sharing such a hopeless conclusion. Several elements indicate, on the contrary, that the risk of collapsing into the free trade area is a concern expressed by more and more people. Within the European Parliament, the obsession of certain political forces to be or to become the "biggest" is now accompanied by the requirement of faithfulness to doctrine and to objectives. It is significant that, within the EPP Group, a considerable number of MEPs of several nationalities had decided to group around the name of Robert Schuman (a name too heavy to bear to be chosen by chance) in order to affirm their attachment to a certain concept of Europe. Several old and young Europeans must have felt a certain shiver down their spine when reading in their programme: "we have the priority ambition of building a political Union of a federal and decentralised kind". The same aim is shared, over and beyond ideological differences, by many MEPs from other groups, by Socialist Jo Leinen (who, in his role of faithful rapporteur, had logically to moderate his personal options) and Emma Bonino and Monica Frassoni, who were perfectly explicit in their declaration.
Franco-German announcement. There are several signs that something is beginning to move in the Franco-German duo. It is unthinkable that France and Germany should have renounced their role of European construction driving force. Of course, the silence and the lack of ambition at the highest level are disconcerting. Do President Chirac, Prime Minister Jospin and Chancellor Schröder have ideas on Europe? How can their self-effacing manner be interpreted? But at least we are beginning to hear their foreign ministers. Joschka Fischer did not hesitate to speak of the political Union as a "challenge for our generation", and announced that Paris and Berlin are "carrying out intense consideration about having a strategic vision which can be accomplished (…). I think that our two countries will be able to give the first responses and political perspectives over coming months". Hubert Védrine, for his part, explained the current hesitations as follows: our two countries are faced by a "dilemma which is that of knowing how to face up to inevitable enlargement while avoiding the paralysis or dilution of Europe". He also announced that an initiative is imminent: "the French and Germans are working together to examine in a comparative manner the different solutions allowing things to work after enlargement". He concluded: "it is in our interest to have a long-term vision of Europe".
A phrase which could go far. France and Germany are therefore going to move in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference, probably once France has taken on the Presidency in July. What will the magnitude of this "long-term vision of Europe" be? What will be its ambitions? We do not know. We can only hope that they go beyond the objective of revising the balance between the "large" and "small" countries, which caused the mistrust of the current Portuguese Presidency (see yesterday's EUROPE, under the same heading). Even the Delors/Giscard d'Estaing/Schmidt solution cannot be ruled out a priori. But its launching would imply a crisis of unsuspected magnitude. Tony Blair would dryly refuse and would feel betrayed, given his efforts for placing his country, in his own way, "at the heart of Europe". Furthermore, progress towards the defence Europe, the essential objective that almost everyone is hoping for, needs the United Kingdom. Also, Jacques Chirac obviously hopes to conclude negotiations on institutional reform in December, in Nice, because this is what he promised to the applicant countries, and for prestige reasons. He does not want a crisis and will not cause it. So? The only solution that one can foresee for now would be to open the door leading to new construction tomorrow, and to make this construction possible. The notion of "increased cooperation" should be replaced by something far broader and open to the future. It is perhaps significant that Ambassador Pierre Vimont, representing France at the IGC at deputy minister level, had spoken before MEPs of "reviewing the concept" of enhanced cooperation, otherwise certain Member States could be tempted to bring it about "elsewhere than in the Treaty" (3). A phrase which could go a long way.
If the French Presidency moves along these lines, it would probably have the support of the "founding" countries, and perhaps of a few others also. At any rate, it is not the number which counts in this undertaking, but the level of ambition, if it still exists.
Ferdinando Riccardi
- - - - - - -
(1) See heading "Texts of the Week" in our bulletin of 18 April, pp.3/4.
(2) See "European Library" in our bulletin of 18 April.
(3) See our bulletin of 19 April, pp.3/4.