Match postponed. The Gothenburg Summit only added "nuances" to the Council "Conclusions" (published in our bulletin of 12 June, p.7), which define the EU's stance following the Irish "no" to the Nice Treaty and which in substance sends out a dual message: a) to candidate countries, to reassure them over the EU's will to respect commitments and the timetable of negotiations; b) to Ireland, to tell it that the other Member States have no intention of re-opening negotiations over the Treaty nor add other provisions, and that it has to be ratified as it stands by all according to the planned timetable.

Result: the candidate countries are not wholly reassured and still have questions to ask; the Irish Government does not know which way to turn to transform this "no" into a "yes". I shall not overturn my conviction that the Irish vote has to be respected and taken seriously. I would simply like to add a statement of confidence in Ireland; if its people are not prepared to participate in the Europe of security and defence nor accept a "European economic government", it's only a match postponed. Half a century of history of European construction has taught us that, if the vanguard moves ahead, in most cases the others follow. In the United Kingdom, most of the political class is now convinced of the need to be part of the euro; in Copenhagen, the authorities are considering the possibility of giving up the exemptions granted to their country. A united Europe cannot be made without people; those satisfied with the present degree of integration will lose nothing of what they already have and what they want. What's important is not to misrepresent the project of others in the aim of convincing those who hesitate.

Within the Community context, or outside? The challenge should be clear. Let's take the military aspect: the question is not whether or not we should go down that path; the question is whether the Europe of defence will be achieved within the Community framework or outside. As those who regard it as essential will not give up; if the Community path is not practicable, they will choose the intergovernmental path. President Chirac declared before the President of the United States: "progress in European defence is irreversible, as it is part of the general and deep movement of European construction. The advent of a European Union fully occupying its part on the international scene is inscribed in the course of history". That's why, if the current and future EU countries do not all agree, it is urgent to build a vanguard: to safeguard the Community framework for further achievements.

The profession of faith of Francois Bayrou. People of good will and good faith ponder on the reasons for this obsession with the Community framework. Francois Bayrou MEP, Chair of the UDF Movement, explained it clearly and convincingly. I shall not subject readers to my modest prose, as he says it better than I ever could, I'll quote him.

For Europeans, "the only question is this one: with our good sentiments and old languages, do we still want to sit at the decision-making table and bang our fist on the table, with a chance of being heard? Yes or no? If so, we need clear ideas; to exercise sovereignty, we need to build up our power. Only one path is available, the European path. To recover the lost sovereignty of nations, we need to build a European sovereignty (…) The intergovernmental, that's the free trade area. The two words are synonymous (…) Its reality, will be the greater market, currency without political balance, a type of regional UN, where governments will dine together without ever deciding, where diplomats will exhaust themselves in building unlikely majorities for a multitude of secondary decisions, excluding what is important: defence, foreign policy, the social model, economic will" (published in "Liberation" of 14 June).

The last lines clarify what, for Mr. Bayrou, is essential, and we immediately see what contrasts it from other theories based on so-called pragmatism. His text comprises many other interesting elements, concerning the need to respect the Irish vote and "demonstrate the sophism" by which enlargement negotiations depend on the Nice Treaty; and Mr. Bayrou gently mocks the ineffectiveness of the dialogue with "live forces and associations, on Internet sites". I'm pleased to quote him at length as Mr. Bayrou belongs to the new generation of politicians, and he proves (together with Mr. Verhofstadt, Mr. Jo Leinen, Mr. Moscovici, and many others) that the generations that built a united Europe have successors. He, moreover, cites three waves of people who inspired him: a) Schuman-Adenauer-De Gasperi; b) Giscard d'Estaing-Schmidt; c) Mitterand-Kohl-Delors. Now, the relief is there.

(F.R.)