Intelligence and humility. It does not often happen that a president of the European Council should, when taking office, be greeted as warmly as Guy Verhofstadt. It is therefor in a climate of confidence that the Belgian Prime Minister begins his difficult task, which will, in December, culminate with the "Laeken Declaration". I shall not here turn to his programme, with its seven "lines of action" and objectives linked to these, as they have been widely summarized in out bulletins, and Mr. Verhofstadt's speech before Parliament was published in full in our EUROPE/Documents No. 2244. What seems interesting to me is,, rather, to turn to another text, a radically different one; the address that the Belgian Prime Minister made at the seventh European Forum Wachau in Gottweig, Austria, on 27 June.
Mr. Verhofstadt demonstrated intelligence and humility. In preparing for his Presidency, he sought out information, he studied the texts, he consulted people with the knowledge and at times "historic memory" of European construction. It may be said that this is normal. But that is not always the case. We have known new heads of government, new European parliamentarians and even new European Commissioners who thought they were able to improvise their knowledge of Europe, with a baggage of ready-made and often erroneous ideas. It then took them at least a year to become effective, to the point that I suggested (without believing it of course) that a six month training period in the Commission's services be compulsory to whosoever is called on for high office in Community institutions. Mr. Verhofstadt did not need this, as he prepared himself well. His address in Gottweig leaves no doubt as to this. Sure, he had the advantage of having top-class advisors, in Belgium's political and university circles; but what's important is that he had the willingness to learn and understand (what's more, still now, to prepare the Laeken Declaration, he has surrounded himself with the opinions of the five people we know).
A virgin look at Europe. Mr. Verhofstadt belongs to the new wave of European politicians; he had not looked in depth at Community subjects before, and some even saw in him sympathies with Mrs. Thatcher's ideas. What is impressive, in his address in Austria, is precisely the almost virgin view he has of European construction, its faults and its qualities, its ambitions and disappointments. His first observation is no discovery; it's the "gap" that exists between the European Union and its citizens, Europe is "opaque" for Europeans. From this observation, the President of the European Council referred to a desire for transparency and dialogue that is not new but had never been expressed, at that level, with so much determination and clarity. He was astonished by the number of complications and absurdities stemming from the opacity he denounced. He found the quantity of legal instruments available to the EU incredible. When a student, he learnt: a) the rules, directives and decisions, binding instruments; b) the recommendations and opinions, which are not binding and he found this of exemplary clarity. Then, reading the successive European texts, he discovered that CFSP (second pillar) has six types of action: the principles and general guidelines, decisions on common strategies, decisions "tout court", joint actions and common positions. The third pillar has common positions, framework decisions, decisions and conventions. The first pillar is even worse: framework-programmes, action programmes, action plans,, provisions, "appropriate" provisions (apparently, he observes, that is not the same), measures, appropriate measures, specific measures, uniform principles, etc., etc.,.
Second observation" the EU has too many treaties. Putting them together in a single text is urgent and indispensable. Third observation: confusion between Union and Community. "We need a single Union endowed with legal personality". Likewise, the pillars need abolishing, as "it is totally incomprehensible to the citizens". And "all of this is to contribute to constitutionalising the Union".
Clarifying the attribution of powers. Fourth observation" the current system of attribution of powers between Community, national or joint is almost inextricable, and also impossible to explain to the citizens. It is essential to establish a "Kompetenzordnung", clarifying the powers of the Union, member countries, a well as the regions. Implementation will be difficult, but the principles, based on subsidiarity, must be clear. Mr. Verhofstadt is opposed to the re-nationalisation of entire fields, but would like greater responsibility for States and even regions in implementing measures, and considers that, in fields such as culture, education and sport foremost responsibility must be that of Member States. In the opposite direction, responsibilities concerning "socio-economic policy supporting the monetary union" must become European responsibilities, as well as the minimum rules of social protection and asylum policy, Europe needs a "genuine common foreign policy and a credible common defence policy" (citizens want this). In addition, efficiency demands European action in fields where separate States are powerless,, like food safety (if products move freely, food safety can only be assured at European level), the environment (only European interventions at world level have any sense), as well as a common policy in the fight against crime, through a genuine European legal area with Community procedures and institutions, as "without that, we shall achieve nothing".
Simple intergovernmental cooperation equals inefficiency. The conclusions he reached over Europe's ambitions and objectives led the Belgian Prime Minister to a genuine plea in favour of the Community approach ("in a renewed version responding to the requirements of transparency, efficiency and democratic legitimacy), as simple intergovernmental collaboration would either be ineffective, or "inevitably take the form of a "directoire", or in other words, a de facto administration by some larger Member states", and, anyway, "an intergovernmental approach - whatever its form - could never make up for the absence of Community institutions". Of course, "the advocates of further European integration will have to acknowledge the differing identities of states and peoples, identities which constitute the essence of Europe's identity". This addition, complemented by the statement that "our European project is the very opposite of a centralized super-state", proves that Mr. Verhofstadt was still slightly a prisoner of false presentations of the European project, whereas the concept that is gradually gaining ground is that of the "Federation of Nation-States" and that the existence of a project of a super-state is an invention of "sovereignists" or the British press. Furthermore, he himself states that "Euro-scpetics are fifty years behind their time".
An institutional plan to be set up and complemented. Logically, all the considerations I have summarized (faithfully, I hope) led Mr. Verhofstadt to set out his institutional plan, the one he finds most able to achieve the ambitions and goals he set out. His approach was right; first define "what it is we want to do together", and then the institutional plan corresponding to it. Here is that plan:
the Commission has to be strong, that is to say a "European government" which is not caught up in the daily management of many different programmes, with at tits head a "President who is directly elected by the peoples of Europe";
the Council and Parliament must become the two chambers of a single legislative body in which Parliament would have a general power of co-decision. The Council would always vote through a majority and within it there would have to be room "constitutional regions";
the Council would moreover conserve a series of executive tasks;
the EU should have "a one and only spokesperson" for the Euro, and the role of the High Representative for Foreign Policy and that of Commissioner Chris Patten should be merged.
As we see, this plan needs working on. He does not mention the European Council, and he assigns the Council with a task of "second chamber" which seems too reduced for a Europe in which the role of Member States must remain central. His concept of the "Community method" also seems incomplete. Mr. Verhofstadt has doubtless not finished in his reflections in these matters. But we must not expect a new "Gottweig Address" too soon, as he himself warned, since the first of July he can no longer speak out with the same frankness and abundance of details. As President of the European Council, "I shall have to observe some restraint in my statements and interventions; at least that is what diplomats are telling me". And he announced: "So today, it appears to me to be the ultimate opportunity for me to speak out freely on the most important European issues and in particular on the future of Europe".
It was therefore important to know the conclusions these reflections on Europe led him to, with the hope that he will be granted the possibility to put them into practice at the end of the year, in the draft "Laeken Declaration", without some Head of State or Government trying to limit his task to the simple procedure relating to the second phase of the reflection on the future of Europe.
(F.R.).