A positive and effective speech on the broad principles. The debate on the future of Europe was dominated last week by the speech to the European Parliament by the German President Johannes Rau. In his speech, given impetus and inspiration by current events (see summary in our bulletin of April 5, p. 3; the full text will be published in our series EUROPE/Documents), he called for two basic things. First, he saw a need for a European constitution and a "Federation of Nations" as the final objective, implying special ties, but rejecting the idea of a single state that would absorb the current states along with their culture, history and traditions. The first part of his speech was upbeat, in a bid to show that the arguments for and against a constitution and a federation were a "mere quarrel over words". He explained that "we need a constitution precisely because we do not want to become a single state". We are familiar with the importance of wording in a debate in which the citizens' participation is sought.
…but there are some perplexing matters. While his speech was effective and useful in ironing out misunderstandings surrounding two words that often scare people (constitution and federation), President Rau's words gave rise to a variety of reactions when he talked about the details. His idea of a "list of powers" at the European, national, local and regional levels, is very rigid. He stated that "everything that is not explicitly written in the constitution as being under European authority must remain under national authority". As a result, the distribution of tasks would be cast in stone. By way of example, Mr. Rau cited one area that should remain under the authority of the states - the prerogative to promote renewable energy sources. That appears to imply the possibility of granting state aid without any EU control. Some aspects of the institutional arrangements put forward by President Rau caused some bewilderment. The idea of transforming the Council into a second parliamentary chamber, which has been envisaged in the past by some federalist projects, seems to me more realistic. Giving the states a purely legislative function does not appear to conform to the idea of a federation of nation states. Would the European Commission then become the true government of Europe? Even if its democratic legitimacy were to be reinforced, I really doubt that such an idea could succeed. Moreover, the heads of government will not give up the role, gradually acquired by the Council, of guiding and supervising the evolution of the EU. We must try to integrate better the Council into the EU structures without diminishing it via rear guard action. The follow-up to this account will likely reveal more about the debate underway.
A tour de force by Sciences Po and the CERI. The CERI (Centre d'Etudes et de recherches internationales, Paris) and Sciences Po, the well-known Paris university specializing in political science, have managed to bring together for a debate on the future of Europe the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer and the two sides in French cohabitation, represented by Alain Juppé on the side of the president of the French Republic, and Jean-Louis Bianco, on the French government side. The invited journalists had to keep to the rule of no direct quotes, and were only allowed to give a general account of the debate. I cannot therefore quote any heartfelt comments from the speakers, which would be enticing but that is not where the essential points lie. In their introductory remarks, all three speakers emphasized their common positions and played down their differences. But then, some thorny questions were raised by former director general of the Commission, Robert Toulemon, who quickly grasped the muted references, and by a few students who helped to lure the speakers out of their reserved positions.
Joschka Fischer has learned to be patient… The meeting was held under the hallmark of Franco-German dialogue and there was full agreement on the idea that Germany and France must take the initiative and come up with a project. But when? Work is being done on both sides, but the speakers carefully avoided indicating any dates. It was clear that there will be no structured common project before the key elections next year. In the meantime, the debate continues, first at national level and then bilaterally, with the intention of bringing in other member states - Italy was explicitly mentioned. There is no hurry as the deadline is 2004. Joschka Fischer broke into a smile at the comments of a hurried student. Mr Fischer, in reference to his own personal experience implied that it is sometimes regrettable when one is young and hasty.
…Mr. Fischer showed some mistrust towards the intergovernmental approach… The first point to be taken on board is that France and Germany need a common project. If the Franco-German engine does not work, then Europe will stall. All the member states agree on that point, even the ones who complain from time to time of a "directory" governing Europe. The second point is that the institutional reform must be far-reaching, almost radical in scope, because with the current system, an enlarged EU would come to a standstill. The German Minister stressed the point that it is vain to talk of Europe as a world power if the EU does not have the means to take action. In particular, Mr. Fischer stated that with the current rules, the Council, with 25 to 30 members, will simply break down. He took a tough stance on the "intergovernmental method", saying that it might be indispensable at the start in the new areas, bu onlyt as a "bridge in order to advance further", a transition towards the EU method, because mere co-operation would lead to the alliances of yesteryear, which never guaranteed sustainable results. The "Community" remains the only solution today, just as it was at the time of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, who were mentioned only by the non-French speaker, perhaps as a mark of politeness towards the organizers. But Mr. Fischer was no more forthcoming about arrangements for the future, no doubt because his current political responsibilities require him to be discreet; in any event, he does not yet have all the answers. He merely called upon "the visionaries" to express themselves, because today Europe does not need a debate of experts, but a vision, or rather a combination of vision and pragmatism. The aim must not be to have a conventional federation in which the states would be immersed and would lose all their identity. No one wishes to see that. Once again, the formula of Jacques Delors - a federation of nation states - was brought out, although Alain Juppé was somewhat bewildered by the apparent contradiction in the phrase.
The government of Europe and other grey zones. While there is agreement on a number of broad principles, there are still a lot of questions surrounding the numerous grey zones. The first one concerns the future government of Europe. The hypothesis that the government could be the European Commission fell very short of generating any enthusiasm from the speakers. Mr. Bianco stated that the role of the Commission is "ambiguous" and the national governments should have greater weight. He was puzzled at the idea of a second parliamentary chamber made up of national representatives. It would extend the already complex decision-making procedures. Mr. Bianco would rather see a "distribution of powers" that would tightly limit the powers of Europe, in the areas of currency, trade policy, the environment and security-defence, but without a common foreign policy. On the other hand, there was general support for the principle of what could be called a military vanguard, and its effective use. But, Mr. Bianco pointed out, without a separate institution and, consequently mainly governmental in nature.
At that point, Robert Toulemen raised two questions: how can we imagine a European security and defence policy without a common foreign policy? How can a vanguard move more quickly on the road to integration, which is its raison d'être, if it operates on the intergovernmental method, which by definition slows progress? There were no clear answers to those questions, and the problem is still on the table.
The financing of Europe rears its head again. At the closing of the debate, Joschka Fischer introduced a subject close to his heart that had not been mentioned previously: the financing of the future EU. He did so not to take a position, but to recall the burden of farm spending, to underscore that there will be some very difficult decisions to make and that France and Germany must prepare "willingly and realistically", thereby anticipating some bitter arguments for the future.
A constitution, but under specific conditions. During the debate, the CERI passed out a document entitled "a European constitution only if…" and signed by the researchers Sylvie Goulard and Christian Lequesne, which describes the results of a serious project led by a working group. The document is in favour of a European constitution, but only under several conditions, which were quite clearly defined. It would be worthwhile to return to the subject in this column. We have learned that Sylvie Goulard will, starting next month, be taking part in a reflection in the European Commission, within the renovated forward studies unit, which is expected to awake from its deep slumber in which it appears to have fallen.
(F.R.)