Paris has defined its procedure. France has defined the procedure for its "public debate", and Germany…has tried to do so. The French decision is clear and agreed, as it was announced in the joint press release by the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister. The National Assembly, Senate, ministers and "all the actors concerned" (universities, associations, economic and social circles) have been invited to take initiatives for dialogue in their respective fields of action, including "decentralised actions" at regional level under the responsibility of the Préfets. In each region, the initiatives will culminate in a Forum open to all those involved in the debate. Pierre Moscovici, Minister of European Affairs, will coordinate work, and a group of ten personalities will draw up a synthesis for the Laeken Summit. In this group, we find Guy Braibant (who played a major role in the Convention of Fundamental Rights) alongside academics, industrialists, trade unionists, plus Jean Nestor (Secretary General of "Notre Europe", association founded by Jacques Delors) and Philippe Lemaitre, who for many years was European affairs correspondent for "Le Monde".
Germany has tried. The German situation is more complex. Chancellor Schroeder seemed to share Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato's idea of instructing a small group of the "wise" to consider Europe's future, and had intended appointing as one of the "wise", Germany's Mr. Schauble, former collaborator of Chancellor Kohl for European affairs. This plan seems, however, to displease Parliament (especially the Bundesrat), not due to any reservation over the person appointed but because the very principle of instructing a small group to consider the issue seems incompatible with the goal of broadening the debate to the public at large and to provide for, in a second phase, direct participation of national parliaments.
The daydreams of a prime minister. In Rome, Giuliano Amato put forward with gusto the idea of handing the reflection on Europe's future to a small group of the wise, securing, in response, a little like the German Chancellor, some resounding "nos" and elsewhere a silence that, in diplomatic language, amounts to a rejectionl. The formula of the "wise" had already been successfully used in some specific areas (the most striking example being that of the single currency) and it could have been used for the reflection n the future of Europe a few years ago, when the debate was contained in the name of "pragmatism", and the voice of a few people could have carried weight. But today the debate has begun and is open to all political, social and economic forces; to return it to a very small body would give the impression that the authorities want to curb it.
Most likely Giuliano Amato was misled by the formal politeness of one or another of his interlocutors. President Chirac had seemed to him almost convinced, and Prime Minister Tony Blair "very interested". Yet, the very interest of a head of government for a plan put to him of her by a colleague clearly signifies the intention of doing nothing with it. Especially when this colleague is to leave office within a few weeks (following the elections of 13 May, the Italian Prime Minister will be Mr. Berlusconi or Mr. Rutelli, depending on the outcome). Mr. Amato has given the impression of seeking for himself a prestigious European role after the elections, speaking in an interview of "four knights of Europe who must convince public opinion", citing Jacques Delors and Jean-Luc Dehaene as possible teammates.
If he really believed that Tony Blair was "interested" in his plan, the Italian Prime Minister has not understood much of Europe today. Previously, he had relaunched the clarion-call for an EU protectionist in agriculture. His intelligence and the effectiveness he showed in his time as Minister of the Treasury allows him to hope for a European future. But he will need a year of learning. That's no big deal; he wouldn't be the first.
Finland confirms. The speech that Mr. Lipponen made before the European Institute of Florence (see our bulletin of 13 April, p.7) confirms that Finland simply does not share the reservations of neighbouring countries (Denmark and Sweden) and the UK vis-à-vis united Europe. The Finnish Prime Minister expressed clear reservations regarding the idea of "setting" EU competencies "in stone" in a list that would harm European dynamism, and defended the "Community method" faced with a advance of intergovernmental tendencies. It's a precious ally that European ambition found in Helsinki.
(F.R.)