Lionel Jospin's European identity. Circles close to the French Prime Minister confirm that Lionel Jospin will take a stance on reform of the EU during the second week of June, in a speech delivered in academic circles. It is said he will be largely inspired by the concept of "Federation of Nation States", but gives priority to objectives rather than to institutions. The Europeans must agree on what they wish to do together before quarrelling over the way the institutions work. The second requirement, alongside clarification of objectives, would concern the European identity. New power transfers will only be accepted if geared to a Union that would affirm its identity by refusing to become diluted in a vague entity, difficult to define and to identify. The institutional structure would depend on its aims. If these are clear and if the European identity is affirmed, the "Community method" based on the Commission/Council/Parliament triangle should be safeguarded, given that the role of the States would be conform to what results from the very notion of Federation of Nation States.
Executive power sharing. Mr Jospin will not need to explicitly reject the institutional scheme set out in the Schröder document (Commission as a the Executive, Council transformed into a Chamber of States), as, on this specific point, his Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine was very clear, when he said on the radio: "There is something that we do not accept and that will not be accepted, and that is the fact of transforming the Council of Ministers, which is the heart of executive power and coordination in Europe, into a second Chamber. The French, whatever the slight differences between them may be, will defend a scheme in which the executive power remains shared between the Council and the Commission". At the same time, his European Affairs Minister, Pierre Muscovici, affirmed one should not "turn our backs on the inspired intuition of the founding fathers of Europe", that is, the institutional triangle that represents not only the Union's federal vocation (Commission and Parliament) but also the legitimacy of the nations (Council), with the European Council crowning the lot. And it is significant that German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer distanced himself, in this connection, from the scheme of things set out by his Chancellor. He told The Financial Times that in the Federation of Nation States the executive power will be shared between the Council and Commission.
More polemic over the "Schröder scheme". Germany is not very lucky in its efforts to fit into the European corset, in order to convince the other Europeans that it has no aims of hegemony. The institutional scheme of things presented by Chancellor Schröder, which excessively reduces the power of States to the advantage of the supranational institutions, may be contained in the continued fundamental direction taken by previous chancellors, in favour of a Germany whose power is firmly within the framework of a strong Europe. This is the benevolent interpretation that I had myself retained. Others are less benign. According to an editorial in Le Monde, Germany is in favour of strengthening the European Parliament "because, being the most populated country, it has more representatives there". The two authors, Mr Le Bouchet and Mr Leparmentier affirm: "to put it clearly, this amounts to a rise in German power". They go on to say: "Germany, the leading power in Europe, wants a federation where it would have more power but refuses the responsibility, mainly financial, that is incumbent upon the largest member". All this comes under the title: "Mr Schröder's selfish Germany".
It is not a kindly interpretation, but it is nothing compared to the accusations by British Conservative Sir Peter Tapsell, who compared the Schröder plan to Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf". This plan, he says, would expose the United Kingdom to the threat of an undesirable foreign sovereignty from Brussels, Bonn and Berlin, endangering the British way of living, culture and trade. The single currently, proposed by the Nazis in their time, would endorse the domination of Europe by Germany. And yet, for many observers, the euro represents the main German concession to Europe, to avoid domination by the DM! Sometimes it must be said on the other side of the Rhine that it is not always easy to be German.
There is yet another stone that is added to the edifice of criticism: Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres considers the Schröder scheme as dangerous. He feels that the fact of entrusting full executive power and the management of European policies to the Commission would lead to "renationalisation of Community policies". Why? Because the governments, reduced to a simple role of Second Chamber, would not allow 'fundamental powers" to persist in the Union.
The interpretation by Le Monde is spiteful, that of Sir Peter Tapsell hallucinating, and the remark by Antonio Guterres adds another argument to those against the Schröder scheme and provides food for thought. (F.R.).