Over simplification. I in no way share the vague comments according to which the French Prime Minister had outlined, on Monday, the design for an intergovernmental Europe, in opposition to the federalist plan of Chancellor Schröder. Such an interpretation is not only biased and inaccurate; it is also dangerous, as it could cause a sentimental and superficial reaction for accession to the Schröder plan and aversion towards the Jospin project, far from any serious analysis of the content. Lionel Jospin accepted the aim of the Federation of nation-States and spoke for the maintaining of the "institutional triangle" Commission/Council/Parliament, as well as against the dismantling of the existing common policies. The Schröder plan, generous and at the forefront in its principals, is not clear over these crucial points and it authorises through its vagueness ambiguous interpretations (see this section on 19 May).
It is true that the speech by Mr Jospin also contains a few perplexities concerning the true role of the European Parliament (the emphasis is more placed on the role of the national Parliaments) and the Commission, and further aspects. For example, it is possible that France considers pushing aside the Commission from the "convention" that will prepare the intergovernmental conference in 2004? And how to guarantee respect for the "Community method" if the Heads of Government gather every two months, without it being specified that this method is also applicable to the Summits? Though I do not intend to analyse, today, this speech in detail, as our readers have only just received the text they should first form their own opinion. I keep myself to noting that its inspiration is based on the values and cultures of Europe, on the European notion of society and international relations, as far as possible from a simple free trade area or a unified economic area. For details and modalities, everything remains to be discussed, and Mr Jospin does not ignore the reservations that one or other of his guidelines (for example, concerning public services or the "economic government" of the Euro zone) cause in some Member States.
Irreconcilable conceptions? Though this is the lot of the whole project at present. The notions of Europe do not coincide; for the time being, what is important is that each express himself. We will then see whether the different conceptions are reconcilable. Certain figures, and not lesser ones, presently assert that no, and that this must already be taken into account. This is a serious subject, over which I will return.
The three concrete points from Romano Prodi. The speech made on Tuesday by the President of the European Commission does not add very many new elements to the debate. Though the reaffirmation of the major principals is justified by the audience to which the President was addressing himself: an audience of students to whom it is useful to reaffirm the reasons for the integration of Europe and the meaning. Too often the "sceptic" propaganda claims that a united Europe is a purely economic undertaking; sometimes it is good to prove the contrary, to insist on the political scope of the process and to place emphasis on the fact that even the economic objectives have other ends: greater social justice, the protection of the environment. Not forgetting that "our present perspective would not be what it is without the single market or the Euro".
Beyond the meaning and the aims of the European undertaking, Romano Prodi reaffirmed his position over three precise points, of which two concerning the role of his institution, namely:
a) the management of the economic and monetary Union "is neither efficient nor coherent". Faced with the European Central Bank, responsible for the monetary side, there does not exist a stable speaker for the economic side. For Mr Prodi, this speaker should be the Commission, on mandate from the Council, as it incarnates the general Community interest, and it is within it that can efficiently take place the global assessment of the EU economic policy;
b) in foreign policy, coherency and comprehensiveness will only be achieved "through the conjunction of the two branches of the executive, the Council which decides and the Commission which implements. In this context, the High Representative for CFSP, who did a remarkable job, would be far more effective if he was also a member of the European Commission;
c) to finance the Union, the issue of a European tax (to be defined), would replace the present system of national contributions, permanent source of conflict between the States, and would thus, no doubt, be an opportune solution. We understand the relaunching of this idea, if we consider at what point the debate over the future of Europe would be simplified and especially emptied of certain poisons, if it was first freed of the budgetary quarrels turning around who pays what, with the "net contributor countries" that complain, and the beneficiary countries which call for solidarity and cohesion, and public opinion which gets exited. (F.R.)