A positive starting point. I am a little late to comment on the initiative from European Commissioner Pascal Lamy, together with figures such as Jean-Noel Jeanneney, Henri Nallet and Dominique Strauss-Khan, on behalf of an even more pronounced "leftist trend" . The reason is that I wanted to give myself time to think before expressing the perplexities that a significant part of the plan (launched in Le Monde of 20 June) caused in my mind.
The personality and convictions of Pascal Lamy are not in question: the work he has done in his role, as European Commissioner, is extraordinary. He is in the process of firming up on the ground the concept of global governance, which - launched by Jacques Delors a few years ago, when the fashion was already for wild liberalism and globalisation without rules - tried to progress. He is once more very firm on this issue: the invisible hand of the market is not enough to create a better world, far from it (…) Globalisation must be tackled by the Left as a pressing motive to build Europe. As a crucial aim of our 21st Century is to decidedly avoid this reign without counterbalance by the market economy weighing own on a great range of national powers and playing with their division to impose a social and cultural model that is not our own. We all know the extent to which, in the framework of his competences and while respecting the institutional mechanisms, Mr Lamy pushes forward his principals, in particular while preparing a new round of negotiations in the WTO.
On a more specifically European level, the ideas presented are vigorous and without ambiguity. Read. The dimension of the Great Europe will prevent that before long it may find a sufficient will to answer the historic requirements of a social and industrial policy beyond, and outside, a common action, served by instruments of sufficient force. It may constitute a common market that favours the well being of peoples', and its suppleness will allow it to open towards the Mediterranean world, necessary preoccupation. Though it does not suit, in the short and medium-term, the more voluntarist action that we need. This is Lamy, at his best.
Surpass enhanced cooperation, too slow and uncertain. In the face of the situation described, Mr Lamy and his three fellow signatories assert the requirement for a force gathered at the heart of a continental solidarity, a close group within another. Not to exclude any one of them, nor to create a hierarchy: the door will remain open to partners in the future (…) what this is, is to show the way. Though the institutional path of "enhanced cooperation" is not truly practicable: it would be too long and too uncertain, too unclear and lacking simplicity before public opinion. Thus the proposal is that Germany and France take the initiative to form an "enhanced Union between two" having to push Europe forward and progressively lead the others. We understand the motives and the aim of this suggestions: make the Franco-German couple "the energy of the initial impetus and launch a movement in favour of the "gathered force" without passing by long and uncertain negotiations between the EU 15 (of which a part will only be concerns with the slowness of the plan and with reducing its aims), and then with Twenty or more.
Intergovernmental in its purest sense. What is incomprehensible for me, is the institutional mechanism, which governs "the enhanced Union between two". A binomial is proposed that could be based on a Congress formed of representatives from two Parliaments, on the frequent ministerial meetings between the two cabinets and a permanent secretariat. Has Pascal Lamy sufficiently considered this plan? It is intergovernmental in its purest sense! Secretariat without independent Commission (in which he sees each day, the need), meetings between the two national parliaments (thus, without the European Parliament's participation), management by the two governments… Farewell the Community method, the balanced institutional triangle, the exclusive right to initiative of the Commission. And how will the binomial be able to progressively develop to become a trinomial and so forth? What other country, even the most favourable towards integration, will be able to adhere to a system that will inevitably be dominated by a Franco-German directory? All that is ambitious and innovative would escape the Community method, as the "amassed force" would notably lead, according to the plan, to economic government that is justifiably long called for by the French Left and which could ensure, better than thirty partners, an influential collective, diplomatic and military reaction, in cases of serious crisis that will have to arise.
How Pascal Lamy, in starting from clear and truly European premises, may he achieve an institutional construction so distant from the Community principals? (F.R.)