Distrust certain summaries. The examination of the full text of the "draft SPD motion on Europe" (as it is the official name of the Schröder document) allows me to presently comment with greater detail. My "linguistic illiteracy" - this is the suitable term - has forced me to wait for the translation of the German original to note that the first summaries do not respect the entire balance of the document. My first impression according to which the institutional part could only represent a approximate beginning has been widely confirmed: the structure started in the document, based on the Commission as a "strong executive body" with the Council transformed into a "Chamber of States", only occupies five or six lines out of thirty-odd pages. Thus it is obvious that it will be deepened and elaborated in the future, notably over the role of the European Council (body which is not even mentioned) and the powers of the national governments (reduced to the role of "Chamber of States").
On the other hand, the document is much more detailed over other aspects, in a sometimes reassuring and encouraging sense, sometimes susceptible of raising concerns. I scan the general assertions that do not translate themselves into precise suggestions, and which cover a significant part of the document (encourage innovation and training, modernise the European social model, promote the protection of the environment and consumers), to concentrate on the operations indications.
Who should do what? The demands from the Lander are amply taken up, as the traditional allocation of tasks between the EU and its Member States does not answer the requirements of the 21st Century. The document calls to act in two opposing directions: a) return to the Member States margins for political manoeuvring that they lost during the European building process, though in numerous fields it is at their level that decisions are most effective; b) at the same time, transfer to the European level competences that will enable the EU to defend its interests at the international level or to guarantee its internal security. The return of powers to the Member States must take place notably in the fields of structural policy and agricultural policy, so that they have greater margin for manoeuvre to carry out autonomous policies in these two sectors. The States must also retain the possibility to ensure public services missions (daseinsvorsorge). The document calls in a specific manner for all the Member States to respect their undertaking to open, in the time foreseen, their gas and electricity markets, and that they liberalise postal services.
More generally, it is necessary to put an end to the rampant transfer of competences at the European level and safeguard the national competences in terms of competition rules. In the opposite direction, by bringing further into the Community sphere of competence the EU's ability in the field of foreign and security policy, internal security and immigration, which must be enhanced.
However, the document does not call for the allocation of competences to be set once and for all: the possibility of transferring new competences to the EU must be safeguarded.
European police. The direction is clear: create an "operational" European police force provided with executive competences on the model of the Federal Bindeskriminalamt Office, establish a European district attorneys notably responsible for the follow-up of Europol activities, create a European police force responsible for ensuring an effective protection of the future external borders of the EU against organise crime and illegal immigration and to develop legal cooperation in the penal field (including the harmonisation of sentences concerning international and cross-border crimes). However, at the same time, all citizens must gain the right to appeal to the European Court of Justice against the measures taken by Europol.
Fundamental Charter of Rights. It must be integrated into the Treaty and thus gain a binding legal value and represent a beginning for the debate over the European constitution.
CFSP and ESDP. Foreign, security and defence policy must be progressively brought into the Community sphere, by defining a global concept of security taking into account the political, military, economic, social and ecological elements. The EU should in particular: a) have the possibility of militarily intervening on its own initiative in the management of crises when NATO does not intervene as an entity; b) draw-up a policy of conflict prevention; c) establish permanent structures for political and military decision-making and set out procedures from crisis management. This presupposes that the EU has the operational capability both civil (police, civil administration, protection against natural disasters) and military (rapid reaction force, central anti-crises organisation).
Enlargement and security. Alongside a general stance in favour of rapid negotiations so that the first candidate countries may take part in the European elections (in 2004), the document explicitly calls for a 7-year transition period for the free movement of workers and services; the maintaining of border checks with the future Member States until the time when the level of security they ensure at their borders with third countries corresponds with the EU criteria.
Agriculture. The SPD does not call for the ending of CAP, but the redefinition of its aims, by redirecting them towards the protection of consumers and product quality. The financing of production must be linked with the respect of new criteria: consumer protection, the environment and animals. Moreover, cofinancing should in the future be the founding principal of CAP.
Irritating subject matter. There is, in the summary above, subject for satisfaction for the generally pro-European direction, and at the same time ample material for irritation for some Member States and for the Commission. The general direction cannot please the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark because it goes too clearly in the direction of a European federation having accentuated political and military competences and growing powers in terms of justice and the fight against organised crime. The institutional structure outlined in the document will give rise to clear opposition and perplexity in most of the capitals (we have already had a foretaste of this last week). Two aspects relating to agriculture affect France: the principal of EU/Member State cofinancing (the Paris government was firmly opposed during the Berlin Summit) and the return of certain management competences to national authorities (or even regional). France will also be disappointed and displease with the explicit reference to the opening of the gas and electricity markets. Spain will challenge the partial denationalisation of regional policy, and it will have the more or less firm support of the Member States, which positively welcomed the recent Aznar Memorandum on the issue. The Commission can only be suspicious of the ideas aiming to partly dismantle the common agricultural policy as well as regional and structural policy and to call, on behalf of the Member States, for greater freedom of action in terms of State aid and competition.
After the frosty years… This said, nothing justifies a dramatisation. We are faced with a preparatory document that must be submitted to several months of internal talks in the German Socialist party. Everything remains open. True surprises are also hardly numerous in this text, because the demands of the Lander in terms of the sharing of competences where well known, and the importance that Germany gives to the issue of spending had been anticipated by its Minister for Foreign Affairs (see this section dated 9/10 April, in fine). From a general political point of view, I remain of the opinion that the core element of the initiative by Chancellor Schröder lies in the confirmation of the German position favourable towards European integration, in the direction opened by Adenauer and followed by his successors until Schmidt and Kohl. The remainder will be the object of negotiations over the coming years, not forgetting that in the initial positions they is always a tactical element. It is positive that the debate has entered into the fore at the highest political level, after frosty years when all talk over the future of Europe was practically banned.
European Socialist party bogged down in quest for unanimity. The first debate within the European Socialist Party confirmed the difficulty that accompanies its travels towards the defining of its position over the Europe of tomorrow: if the Party wants to reach a unanimous position based on a consensus of all its parts, it will have to put so much water into the wine of leading positions that the result will have neither taste nor flavour. The resolution approved on Tuesday in Berlin is a foretaste of the bland dish we await. The number of traditional Socialist positions on Europe to which the Berlin Congress had to renounce on request from the British Labour members is educational: crossed out, the binding nature of the Charter of fundamental rights and its inclusion in the Treaty; crossed out any reference to a Union policy; crossed out the Directive on the information and consultation of workers over national mergers… Certain militants would want to speak out, as in the film by Nanni Moretti: ESP, say something leftist!
Moreover, how else to do it if we want to safeguard the fetish of unanimity? A British President, on the eve of his presenting himself before the most Eurosceptic public opinion in the world, will certainly not push towards leading positions, whatever the personal beliefs of Mr Cook. A few Prime Ministers, behind their congratulating facades for the so interesting contribution from Chancellor Schröder, feel that his document is, in part, a tribute that the German Social Democratic Party pays to national requirements; in other words, that its content is called upon to develop in the framework of the debate at the European level. The path of the ESP towards a common position over the Europe of tomorrow is littered with pitfalls (though, that of the EPP will be no easier). (F.R.)