Some words to be used with caution. The debate on Europe's future has gathered pace and deepened, and - as is normal - is also beginning to express concerns and reservations regarding the project sketched out by the German Foreign Minister. Did not Joschka Fischer anticipate certain details that should result from the debate? Did his speech not come too soon, with the risk of harming the very objectives he is seeking? The positive aspects of his speech are so obvious that there is no point on dwelling n them. He simply rekindled the real European debate that had been called for for several years now, on the goals and purpose of the Union. As such, he will remain in the history books of European construction. It is true that since the beginning of the year, people like Jacques Delors, Helmut Schmidt and Valery Giscard d'Estaing had already begun this debate; but it took a Foreign Ministers in office to intervene, for it to take a dimension to awaken the mass press and lead to other interventions snowballing in political circles. Today, public opinion knows that, with the Intergovernmental Conference (which the crowds are hardly excited about, and that's the least that can be said), it is the future of Europe that is at stake.
Why then express some amount of bewilderment? Why raise questions? Because the German Minister wanted to be so explicit regarding the point of arrival of his vision of Europe that he risks complicating short and medium-term projects. Speaking explicitly of a federal European government and a two-house Parliament, he may have placed in difficulty people who like him - and even before him - have invoked the opening of a vast debate but who believe that the point of arrival has precisely to be the result of that debate, those that have opened the path to the creation of a European "avant-garde" (whatever the terminology used) but who consider that for now what is essential is to define the principle and create the instruments, leaving it then up to Member States of the "avant-garde" themselves to define the details. Mr. Fischer's terminology will, on the other hand, facilitate the task of those who, being against the word federalism, in fact intend to reject the very term "avant-garde". It is well known that the difference between federalists and anti-federalists is more a question of terminology than substance; for some, federalism means excessive centralisation of powers in Brussels, for others it means exactly the opposite, like the German Republic that calls itself federal precisely because a large part of the power is in the hands of the Laender. But this dispute remains and causes so many disputes that several sincere friends of Europe regard it preferable to avoid a debate on the matter.
Did Mr. Fischer speak too soon too? Some commentaries could give that impression. Jacques Delors said: "to be frank, I believed that Fischer would have been better to wait for February before speaking". And the embarrassment of the impending French Presidency of the Council is obvious, obliged to recall that for the Presidency the to priority had to be above all the success of the IGC. All is happening as if events had been programmed differently. First an initiative by the new Presidency to disentangle the IGC, with Germany's backing, and no doubt with that of other governments; then the search, for the end of the year, of an effective agreement, opening the door to later projects; and from the beginning of next year, the debate on the future. Fischer's anticipation has led both France and Spain it take their distances from the federal option, thereby tactically strengthening the position of those against the very principle of ambitious projects.
"Closer integration" instead of enhanced (and disparate) cooperation. Italy intervened immediately in an article by Lamberto Dini that almost codifies the two-stage approach, providing very ambitious objectives for the first and defining institutional mechanisms that will allow for the transition to the final phase. Mr. Dini expresses the goals of the IGC with such clarity and precision that a posteriori explains Mr. Seixas da Costa's mistrust, on behalf of the "small countries", regarding the initiatives that the future Presidency could take. Mr. Dini has taken a stance in favour of a limited-sized Commission (rejecting the idea of one Commissioner per country), in favour of a significant strengthening in weight of the "large countries" (he spoke of the need to reverse the previous tendency) and in favour of the extension of majority voting to almost all fields, including tax. At the same time, one should include in the reform the principle of the "avant-garde" rendering possible "closer integration" (instead of disparate "enhanced cooperation) between countries wanting to "place in common increasingly significant aspects of sovereignty", so as to pave the way for the "institutional path" towards federal structures (not detailed for now).
Candidate countries are part of the family. The path described by Lamberto Dini will no doubt come up against great difficulties and serious obstacles among the Fifteen themselves, and increase the mistrust of countries candidates for accession. For the former aspect, one can only wait for the initiatives of the next Presidency and the new phase of negotiations. As for the candidate countries, Jacques Delors made a suggestion to reassure them and at the same time to help them wait serenely to have accomplished all the conditions necessary for Union membership. According to him, one should transform the European Conference - totally useless instrument as we stand - into a permanent structure to discuss issues of internal and external security. He went on to explain: "It is essential that the thirteen candidate countries feel that they are in fact part of the EU family", that they do not have the impression of being "parked before a wall". They too are the European Union. Given that they cannot all together achieve the objectives of Maastricht, the 28 (15 of the EU and the 13 candidates) should constitute an geo-economic area. Should they succeed, "historians of the future" will say that Europe had shown that it was possible to reconcile the market with the indispensable rules, and the freedom of enterprise with the respect of the rules of play, by creating a "laboratory of a successful globalisation". This construction should at the same time move forward with the Union's avant-garde, project that has come a long way. The idea has been launched: those who find it interesting can take it on board, as Jacques Delors claims no paternity to it, explaining: "I remain true to the thoughts of Jean Monnet: better to act than to pretend. I consider myself a simple militant for the cause: what is important is that it should move forward, going from hand to hand".
Salutary causticity. As we see, it is not ideas that are lacking. Joschka Fischer's initiative of anticipating the movement has not to coagulate positions, rendering the negotiations more difficult. One has to avoid the project of a future federal Europe having as only effect - as was said by Jean-Luis Borulanges with his ability to come up with surprising wording - to "add a little prophetic sauce" to an otherwise insipid menu. The Euro-MP believes that the Fischer projects sees so far that "in the coming six months, it undertakes to do nothing, but risks being able to abusively elevate some unfortunate enhanced cooperation to the rank of a preemption of a federal Europe". Whence, in his opinion, enlargement "will condemn any further revision of the Treaty"…
Bourlanges' causticity is salutary because it disturbs conformity. But while stealthily baring the weaknesses of a construction, he seems to suggest no alternative solution. He does not believe in the institutional feasibility of the "hard core", wondering: "Will the Commission, Council, Parliament have the vocation of being institutions of the centre of gravity or will we want to duplicate the system as a whole?". According to him, this idea is impracticable. This is not the opinion of Jacques Delors, nor of Helmut Schmidt, nor of Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who have explicitly spoken of the need for specific institutions for the European avant-garde. And Michel Barnier warned: without solutions within the European Treaty, the avant-garde will form itself outside, with the risk of abandoning the Community method and falling back into an intergovernmental mechanism whose inadequacy has been proven by the facts so many times.
Other contributions to the great debate warrant being mentioned. But these elements are already enough to fuel contemplation.
Ferdinando Riccardi
- - - - - - - -
Note: for Lamberto Dini's article, see our bulletin of 20 May, p.5 and the text in full in "Correre della Sera" of 19 May. The words of Jean-Louis Bourlanges were taken from an interview with Jean Quatremer, published in "Liberation".