The priority of Lionel Jospin. Following his visit on Tuesday to the European Commission (see our bulletin of 21 March p.4), Lionel Jospin unveiled an aspect, that I consider fundamental, of his ideas on the Europe of tomorrow. He stated that any additional "delegation of powers" to the EU will only be conceivable if it first asserts its "European identity". Before discussing the institutions, their reforms and their functioning, the Europeans must agree on the "internal project" and their "external vision". Any sacrifice of sovereignty by the States must be consented in favour of a whole having as much personality and legitimacy. The priority, is the identity of the Union; the institutional architecture will follow naturally. Mr Jospin asserts that this concept is the "mould of his thoughts", which must still be detailed, but will be soon.
No transfers of sovereignty in the absence of a "European identity". The references to a "European legitimacy" and globalisation (Europe must adapt to it without loosing its identity) clarify the message he wants to put across. It is thus that I understand it: France will only accept to "share" other aspects of its sovereignty if the EU asserts its European identity, notably with regards to the United States. Though, if doubts remain (for example over the relationship with NATO and the move towards a European autonomy in terms of foreign and defence policy), France should then retain its autonomy in several fields in the European context. While listening to him, I could see unfold in my mind a few recent events that justify a few doubts over the true desire for the "European choice" on the side of such or such country of the EU, for example certain stances on the relationship between the European Defence and Security policy and NATO, the participation of European States in the American Echelon spying system, the "political" reticence of two capitals with regards to the Galileo project.
According to the French press, among the figures consulted by Lionel Jospin in this phase of drafting his "European thinking", are in particular Jacques Delors and the European Commissioner Pascal Lamy, along side some of his Ministers (Mr Védrine and Mr Moscovici) and his party's First Secretary, Mr Francois Hollande.
Give words a meaning. The impression of a thinking in gestation was confirmed by other assertions from Mr Jospin during the same press conference (the first since the spring of 1998, before journalists accredited with European institutions). He reaffirmed his conviction with regards to the "absolutely irreplaceable" role of the Commission in the European institutional area. He did not reject the "Federation of nation-States" formula to define a Federal State (as the States in the United States) are not nations, but part of a nation. According to the formula indicated, the EU would become a Federation, but while safeguarding the nation-States, which form it. It is necessary to "give a meaning to words".
Public services, it is not a question of a timetable. Alongside the specifically institutional issues, Mr Jospin reiterated the specific meaning that France gives to "public utility services", which guarantee the equality of citizens. France goes, as are others, in the direction of liberalisation; however it is not a question of a timetable, but the content: equal access for all, quality, safety, fair cost. Citing case in the United Kingdom (railways) and in Sweden (electricity) where "content" have not been, in his opinion, respected, and which incite him to be prudent.
To conclude, Mr Jospin assured that France would be "an extremely active partner" in the debate over the Europe of tomorrow.
The greed of Jo Leinen. All the political forces (or nearly) recognise that the broad institutional debate must not keep itself to the four points cited in the Treaty of Nice (delimiting the competences on the basis of the principal of subsidiarity, status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, simplification of the Treaties, role of national parliaments), but the European parliamentarian Jo Leinen went particularly far. In his report for the European Movement (see bulletin of 15 March p.5), he called to add to the accepted general issue (constitutional Treaty, van guard, etc.) the deepening of the economic and monetary Union, the future of the Common agricultural policy and of cohesion policy, and also the issue of the "geographic borders" of the EU that political forces want, for the time being, to avoid. By increasing the subjects of discussion, do we not risk damaging the clarity of the results? (F.R.)