Before the summer break, Jacques Delors set out his concept of a European vanguard, explaining, on the one hand, the reasons why, according to him, it is essential for Europe to pursue its path to integration and, on the other, its structure and possible ways it could work. As early as the beginning of the year, when he put forward the idea, the project of a Federation of Nation-States had been criticised by: those not in favour in principle of progress towards European integration, those who consider that such a project could only become necessary in case of failure in the institutional reform currently being negotiated, and by those wondering how it would work and fearing the end of the EU's institutional unity. Which means by many.
Jacques Delors responded to these objections by making coherent and operational proposals. He did so essentially through: an interview with the editorial staff of the newspaper La Croix; an article published in "Le Monde des débats"; television declarations. In all cases, he made a firm distinction between this debate on the future and negotiations within the Intergovernmental Conference currently underway: this IGC has to be concluded by the end of the year; the broad debate will follow.
Interview granted to Jean-Christophe Ploquin, of "La Croix".:
A provisional system. "To speak of a pioneering group or vanguard is to acknowledge that one can only reconcile the deepening of European construction with the Union's enlargement by allowing a certain number of countries to go further while remaining open to others, by creating a Federation of Nation-States. One day, these two entities will only be one: it is not a question of two parallel paths that will never meet. My proposal seeks to maintain the momentum of European construction with a vanguard that would remain open to all those that are able and willing to participate. Setting out from there, I place foremost emphasis on the Community method, that is to say the smooth running of the Parliament-Council-Commission triangle, which, for me, represents the key to success for both the Union and the Federation. Yet, this method is not mentioned in Jacques Chirac's speech before the Bundestag (…) and I have no idea what German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer thinks of it.
Other than the powers of the European Parliament, the Community method is a subtle balance between a Commission which, daily, deals with European matters, which takes account of the aspirations and problems of each State before arriving at the European interest, and which forwards to Council proposals enabling the latter to decide in all clarity. This system remains the best for several years to come (I'm not speaking about what will happen in 2020). Yet, this triangle is not working well today".
The vanguard must have a minimum of Institutions. "The vanguard must have a minimum of institutions of its own. I believe that the Commission could be the same as the one working for the Union, as it is the guardian of the European interest. But there would be a specific Council of ministers for the vanguard countries and a specific bicameral parliament, no doubt composed of members of the vanguard who are members of the European Parliament and a second chamber composed of members of national parliaments. We also need to personalise the Union and the Federation. At least for the vanguard, thought would have to be given to a president elected for two-and-a-half years who, liaising with the rotating presidencies of the Council of the Union and with the president of the Commission, would ensure the continuity of the work and would represent the Federation in the outside world.
The tasks of the vanguard. "The vanguard will achieve EMU (economic and not only monetary union) by going further in coordinating economic policies, it will succeed in broadening the realm of social guarantees, it will have a military projection force, it will create a common area of justice and security, arrive at a common concept of immigration and undertake joint actions in foreign policy".
And the United Kingdom… "If, at the Nice Summit, obstacles to the implementation of enhanced cooperation are lifted, nothing would prevent the Federation from having such cooperation with Great Britain or other countries to create a projection force".
A Treaty, not a Constitution: "The term Constitution carries with it great ambiguity. I was led to believe, along with a large part of the French political classes, that we would prefer to manage our relations with the other countries through an international treaty. In that context, we would agree to the joint exercise of sovereignty in some areas. A Constitution, on the other hand, is something quite different. It refers to a single State and is quite far removed from the Federation of Nation-States (…) A Constitution would engage Member States on very dangerous grounds that could lead to a Constitutional Court gradually stripping nations of the prerogatives that States continue to exercise".
Responding to the concerns of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. ""I'm making three proposals. The first is that at the Nice Summit in December, the decision be made that the period of negotiations be completed by end-2001 with the most advanced countries. At that moment, decisions will be made according to objective criteria. Secondly, I'm proposing that as from now, the European Conference that brings together the 15 member countries of the EU and the 13 applicants be structured in such a way as to be able to meet on a regular basis, six to ten times a year, to discuss problems of internal and external security. Thirdly, we shall have to define with the applicant countries just how far, among thirty, we shall be able to go on the road on economic, monetary and social integration, in terms of political accompaniment, minimum social and environmental guarantees."
A comprehensive and coherent vision
In the article published in "Le Monde des débats" of July-August, entitled "My vision of a Federation of Nation-States", Jacques Delors firstly set out the delicate balances to be sought between the EU's deepening and its enlargement. On this subject, he wrote:
Two parallel priorities. Reunifying Europe, is our essential duty: finding sound formulae to help the former Communist countries find the paths to pluralist democracy and adapting their economies to the new technological and world order (…) Deepening European construction is an equally powerful requirement. To cite but three examples: can we succeed in the single currency without at the same time achieving Economic Union? How to provide more relevance and consistency to joint actions in the realm of foreign policy and the preservation of peace? Nor does it suffice to proclaim the concern of preserving the security of citizens; we also need to get together to jointly combat international crime.
The priorities for applicant countries. "The main sleight-of-hand is to suggest that future enlargements will, like the previous ones, have a unifying nature, that is to say that they will enable all the acquis of European construction to be developed at the level of the greater Europe. Hubert Vedrine acknowledges this when he predicts that links between the thirty will exist but will be less close, situations more heterogeneous (…). To avoid disappointing tomorrows, to render enlargement negotiations easier, would it not be wiser to define with the candidate countries the economic and financial contours of the future greater Europe?
But although these countries have a crucial need to modernise their economies, they above all want to reintegrate the European family. Immediate and strong gestures are possible. Why not structure the European Conference that brings together the fifteen Member States and the thirteen applicants? In this way it would be possible to achieve a permanent dialogue, at the level of the ministers and their senior officials, on issues of internal and external security, which are their other priority.
Limits to the competencies of the Federation of Nation-States
"The intergovernmental method is coming back with a vengeance in the thoughts and practices of many government (…) Yet, the experience of these past forty years confirms one thing: each time that we have strayed from the Community method, there has been stagnation, crisis even. It is high time that Member States allowed the Commission to use its prerogatives and reform the General Affairs Council to make of it, in close partnership with the Commission, a place of political dialogue, of synthesis and preparation for European Councils. Let's spare the latter of crazy agendas and resolutions that are not followed up by deeds.
Too many proclamations on all subjects, too many proclamations of self-satisfaction so as to hurt no one, these are the risks of current developments. The European Union gives the impression of dealing with everything, attracting warranted criticisms its way. This is where the notions of subsidiarity and federation come in. I wanted to involve them in the concept of Federation of Nation-States, which means that the treaty defines who does what and that exclusive powers are reserved for the nation (and, in federal countries, the regions). I am notably thinking of all the issues that are linked to a nation's cohesion: employment, social aspects, health, education and culture. In these fields, healthy cooperation
between countries is preferable to failed unification of policies. Likewise, it is preferable to speak of joint actions rather than a single foreign policy that is neither desirable nor realistic (…).
Enhanced cooperation can prepare the creation of the vanguard
"It is in virtue of this same line of action that I hope we experiment with enhanced coopration. Assessment of it could be made before the European Union has over 20 members. But it is not too soon to draw attention to the risks (of enhanced cooperation): growing complexity of the decision-making process, lack of consistency between actions undertaken, dilution of the institutional triangle (Parliament/Council/Commission), emergence of a weird self-service where each would take what suited them best.
The vanguard claims to avoid such risks. Some calling it "centre of gravity of European construction" or "hard core", it is the driving force of integration, compatible with the grand enlargement, faithful to the gradual method, one step calling for another, but always with total clarity.
But to succeed, this vanguard open to all needs to be doubly demanding regarding its goals, affirming the will to embark certain policies together and thus benefiting from the effect of scale. But also regarding method, by being perfectly faithful to the Community spirit. This is why it should have its own institutions, ensuring closer involvement of national parliaments and a very clear separation of powers according to the principle of subsidiarity and along the lines of a Federation of Nation-States.
A suggestion for the composition of the European Commission
I his televised interview with Pierre-Luc Seguillon, Jacques Delors made the following suggestion regarding the future composition of the European Commission
"I would be in favour of limiting the number of commissioners by regrouping countries by constituencies. For example, the Baltic States could form a single constituency which would have one Commissioner rotating between the three countries. We would thus arrive at a number of Commissioners no higher than 20".
This suggestion obviously refers to the ongoing IGC, whereas the other texts concern negotiations and developments to take place after the Nice Summit.
Giulano Amato, Italian Prime Minister: "For my part, I entered government in fact aiming at the Presidency of the European Commission, where in fact it is Romano Prodi who went. There was an unforeseeable acceleration in Europe, and another in Italy, I found myself as President of the Council of Ministers. That was not on the cards." (declaration to Corriera della Sera, on 30 august).
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former President of the French Republic" "I have always believed that, to be heard, the first president of the European Central Bank had to be a man whose international authority was recognised. At least, a former finance minister of an ancient country, or even a former head of State, or at least a former head of government, still of a large country. The introduction of the euro was no technical task but a political one (…) In fact, and contrary to the spirit of the Treaty, the mutual of governors of Member States appointed one of their own, one from a medium-sized country, at the head of the ECB. Whatever the personal qualities of Mr. Duisenberg, there was a mistake in the casting" (declaration to a French weekly).
Romano Prodi, European Commission President: "There is no alternative to the Commission. The intergovernmental does not work. But I have no concerns. It is always somewhat the same. At the beginning, each time the Union broaches new sites (Schengen, for example with the abolition of internal borders, or Tampere even, i.e., cooperation between our justice systems and our police forces, the idea emerges to act without the Commission), and each time, on arrival, the Commission is there, in its role. As no action of any importance is possible if one does not have a strong body, a competent administration and the political ability to act. Thus, the Commission." (Interview with Pierre Bocev and Pierre Rousselin, for "Le Figaro" of 12 July).