A simple thesis, with countless complications. Long awaited, long spoken of and long recommended, the great debate is now open! Not yet in the public domain, as the public still needs to have certain elements of proof - the success of the euro, the implementation of the Lisbon programme, positive results in foreign policy, mainly for Serbia - to gain fresh momentum. But the hope of hearing the voice of political decision-makers has been fulfilled. To be quite truthful, way beyond expectations. Since the informal ministerial session in the Azores, there have been a large number of positions taken mainly in favour of the guidelines set out by Jacques Delors and taken on board for the most part by Helmut Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
It is not a matter of seeking an identity in the guidelines or solutions suggested. The turning point is that the debate has been extended to political decision-makers in power who express their views in the exercise of their duties (even though the German foreign minister has specified that, for now, he is speaking for himself). The similarity of inspiration between France and Germany confirms what the French side has already anticipated: both countries are preparing initiatives which will no doubt be expressed once France has taken over the Council Presidency and therefore also that of the Intergovernmental Conference. The basic thesis is clear: the EU enlarged to 30 countries cannot (at least for a while) have the same ambitions as the original Europe which has just celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. So that these ambitions are not cast off completely, those who wish to maintain them must take new initiatives among themselves, leaving the others the possibility of catching up with them.
As you can see, the concept is simple, but many complications could arise. First of all, there is the opposition of those who do not intend to go any further, and who logically do not like to remain excluded from new achievements. They are already sufficiently put out by the existence of the "euro group" (that the future French Council Presidency hopes to strengthen) and the Schengen Group. Secondly, there is the distrust of those who are not sure they are able to take part in all the new initiatives. And thirdly, some (even within the institutions, like the European Parliament in particular) fear there will be an institutional divide within the Union. And the applicant countries have the sensation either that their accession is being made subject to new conditions or that something is being prepared from which they could be excluded. These are valid objections which should be taken into account. Such is, moreover, the aim of the debate now open.
The precursors were right. In the beginning, when Jacques Delors diffused the result of his reflections in a conference and then in a hearing before the French Senate, he received relatively little echo. Several observers had not understood that something very important was in the air. The same thing was true when Helmut Schmidt and Gicard d'Estaing announced their position. Would these initiatives have triggered off the broad and indispensable reflection on the future of Europe? Of course, certain early signs of this necessity had appeared at an earlier date, such as the international success of the book by Philippe de Schoutheete called "Une Europe pour tous", the importance of which had been obvious as soon as it appeared in the original French version. It has just come out in English after appearing in Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Finnish, Swedish and Polish. But one might have feared that the debate would remain confined to academic circles and within European movements, as the voice of political decision-makers was not yet to be heard. Sometimes one even had the impression that in some Member States, in France and Germany especially, the new political class had converted to European pragmatism: to do what is possible or what seems indispensable, without vision or ambition. In just a few weeks, all that has changed. The debate is open, in the most official manner possible: a discussion between the foreign ministers in the Azores, a stance taken by the European Commissioner responsible for institutional reform, a speech by the upcoming Council president, an overall project by the foreign minister of the most powerful European country whose silence was beginning to be impressive. I shall not go into the history of these different events here as Agence EUROPE covered them fairly exhaustively in last week's bulletins (1). Let us simply add a few remarks.
Painting rainbows in the sky? First remark: at the meeting in the Azores, most of the foreign ministers took a stance in favour of institutional reform involving the possibility, for whomsoever has the political determination, to move forward more swiftly than the others. We are not naïve enough to consider that this guideline of principle involves accession to the vanguard project, with a separate Treaty and specific institutions. The road is still long. But most ministers reaffirmed in Furnas that their governments were keen on integration goals and opposed to the risk of diluting the Community into a vast free trade area with weak and ineffective institutions. For some, this involves the determination to define new ambitious aims: for Lamberto Dini, as we knew; and Joschka Fischer brought this point home "ad abundantiam" a few days later; and Louis Michel formally marked his adoption of Fischer's ideas. For others, it remains to be seen how they will behave when the moment to decide comes, and it will most likely be necessary to take position "against" other Member States. Because one cannot avoid the "moment of truth", the attitude of the British, Danish and Swedish ministers has confirmed it. It is not just the stances taken during the debate which take us to this conclusion but also several comments to the press. For French Minister Hubert Védrine, the Furnas debate had been the most interesting European debate attended by him since he took over his ministerial duties. Other ministers shared his view, but one British diplomat felt it was a "stratospheric debate" and, according to a Scandinavian minister, his colleagues had begun "painting rainbows". Some believe that at last we have got down to discussing the future of Europe. For the "practical" ones amongst us, it is a waste of time, and a way in which futile differences between the Fifteen are raised. And what do the heads of government think? The attitude of Mr Jospin, Mr Aznar and even of Chancellor Schröder remain ambiguous, not on principles but because we do not know to what extent they are willing to enter a conflict that would prove necessary if the impression is confirmed that there is a difference of culture, traditions, aims and ambitions between the founding EEC countries and part of those who joined them later. Things will be clearer over coming months.
My second remark: the text by Michel Barnier (who, as we know, represents President Prodi in the Intergovernmental Conference) is highly explicit on three essential points. One: the IGC must not be concluded before its content is found to be satisfactory, as the "obligation of success mainly covers quality and reform, and only then the date"; two: among the 30 future EU countries, one party will not necessarily share the "same conception of what should be accomplished together"; three: failing satisfactory reform, no one will ban certain Member States from "conserving, after enlargement, the ambitions that they share today, and these ambitions will be expressed despite it all outside the Union's institutional framework".
The concept of vanguard is making its way. Third remark: part of the speech by Pierre Moscovici (French European Affairs Minister who will be sharing the Council Presidency with Mr Védrine during the next half year) affirms the need to make the increased cooperation mechanism more flexible, in order to have an instrument allowing a vanguard to make progress in integration, to open the road, but still leave the other members the possibility of joining them later. The notion of vanguard has thus made its appearance in the terminology of the next Council presidency.
Fourth and final remark: the speech by Joschka Fischer is an attempt at foreseeing the future Europe "well beyond the next decade" up to the European Federation, by giving shape to the future Institutions, with a two-house Parliament and a European government. But the German minister acknowledges that the road should be in stages, without automatic transition from one stage to the next, and will, when the time comes, involve "an act of deliberate political refoundation in Europe". Mr Fischer is looking a long way ahead. Let us remain closer to these years, which he calls an intermediary stage. He speaks of a specific Treaty for forming a "centre of gravity" with own institutions, a strong Parliament and a directly elected president. And he also takes up the concept of vanguard, which of course meets with a great deal of support at present.
We ask for nothing more for the time being. The debate is open, and very much open. We shall see what comes of the Rambouillet meeting, on 19 May, between Chirac, Jospin and Schröder. A return to ambitions?
Ferdinando Riccardi
(1) See the report of the ministerial meeting of the Azores in our bulletin of 8/9 May, pages 3 to 7; the summary of the speech by Pierre Moscovici before the PES group at the European Parliament in our bulletin of 12 May, pp.6/7; the essential part of the position by Michel Barnier in our heading "Texts of the Week" in the edition of 12 May, p.3; the summary of the Joschka Fischer lecture in the bulletin of 13 May, pp.3/4; the first comments of the future Council president Mr Védrine, of several other capitals and of the Commission President Mr Prodi in yesterday's EUROPE, pp.6/7.