North star. Italy has swept away the concerns about its position on the reform of Europe. Italy's Foreign Minister Renato Ruggiero confirmed in no uncertain terms that he remains faithful to European construction and that he is resolved to follow the navigators' guide, "the North star of Italian policy, pointing to the edifice of Europe". Italy has no alternative. If its weakens its links with Europe, it loses all importance and all influence in the world. Its economic situation would worsen and unemployment would increase. Mr Ruggiero insisted on the advantages to be gained from European unity (single currency has given Italy the lowest inflation rate and interest rates that it has ever known) and also recalled the EU's recent achievements on the international front, in Macedonia, the Middle East and in Durban. He concluded by saying: "so this is supposed to be a bureaucratic Europe? No, certainly not". For the future, he spoke of "very strong" institutional reforms and took a stance in favour of a vanguard of which Italy should be a part from the outset. He went on to stress that "the EU does not kill national sovereignty. On the contrary it amplifies it and makes it more effective". As far as the aspirations of young people and of the public in general are concerned, the minister said: "we can only give them satisfactory answers with Europe and through Europe" (interview with La Repubblica on 11 September, speaking to Franco Papitto).
It is true that the European convictions expressed by Renato Ruggiero, who served above all as Directorate General at the European Commission and Italy's Permanent Representative in Brussels, were not under fire, but rather the general direction taken by the government in Rome (older members could not forget that, during the first Berlusconi government, the Foreign Minister took a public stance against the euro). Now, however, Ruggiero is seeking to give reassurance: he affirms he is in syntonia with Council President Silvio Berlusconi, and the European Affairs Minister, Rocco Buttiglione, and that the government's line is clear. The few uncertainties at the beginning (on the Kyoto Protocol and on regional funding) have been lifted. At any rate, as I see it, one point is quite clear: - if the Italian government were to deviate from its European line, Renato Ruggiero would not remain in place and what could be clearer than that. But there is nothing to point to such a threat.
The Barnier solution. In the meantime, the debate on the future of Europe continues. Michel Barnier, Commissioner responsible for institutional reform, continues his meetings with the national parliaments of Member States. As his speech in Berlin was amply summarised in our bulletin of 8 September, p.6, I shall simply stress the explanations that he gave to the problem of the Council's place in the future institutional structure. The quarrel is well known. The German Socialist Party had taken a stance in favour of changing the Council into a second Chamber of Parliament, the "Chamber of States", with legislative functions, and with the Commission fully taking on the functions of a European government. Several other political forces, mainly in France, had vigorously challenged such an idea, that they find incompatible with the notion of Nation State, and incompatible with the democratic regime (as the Commission alone cannot have the legitimacy of the elected governments that go to make up the Council). Michel Barnier took position in favour of an intermediary solution consisting of making a clear distinction between the two functions of the Council: the executive function (which, he believes, should remain as an "important element of the Union's architecture") and the legislative function, which would be entrusted to a specific Council formation, called upon to deliberate in open sessions. A far more balanced solution would share the legislative power between the Parliament and the Council and the executive power between the same Council and the Commission. It does not seem reasonable to go further in the foreseeable future.
Ambitions and clarity. In France, where the debate on the future of Europe is very structured, Mr Guy Braibant, Chair of the group entrusted with coordinating the contributions of citizens and associations, received a particularly significant response: that of Robert Toulemon on behalf of AFEUR (Association française d'étude pour l'Union européenne). It is significant for the personality of the author and for the nature of his text, which presents an overall vision of the future Europe, its identity, its aims, its structure and its functioning. I had not yet had the opportunity to read such a clear and concise definition of the three elements that should characterise Europe compared to the other regions of the world: - a) the existence over a reduced area of peoples with a strong cultural and linguistic identity, and the determination to preserve this; b) the work of reconciliation and edification of a supranational legal order conceived to make any further conflicts impossible, and c) the will to reconcile the efficacy of a competition economy with a high degree of social and regional solidarity. Emphasis should be placed on preserving regional solidarity at a time when some political powers seem to be challenging it in the name of subsidiarity. Mr Toulemon recognises the need to decentralise, with the use of aid being left for regional authorities to decide (rather than national or EU authorities), but wants strict a posteriori control to be exercised by the Commission and in the event of misuse, the Commission should deal with management in liaison with the beneficiary state.
If it is not the avant-garde, it certainly looks like it. Robert Toulemon's institutional project is ambitious. It should lead to a permanent European government replacing both the current Commission and the Council, with the President being elected by universal suffrage. This could only happen after a period of change which will not be rapid, but must be programmed. In other words, it would be the objective, an arrival point. Meanwhile, Mr Toulemon sets out reforms that could be possible in 2004 - the Commission's powers should be extended (by extending its competence to all areas covered by the current three "pillars"); the European Council's powers should be clarified; and the Ministerial Council's powers should be exercised in a more coordinated manner (designating a Minister or Deputy Prime Minister in each government responsible for coordination). The European Parliament's elections should be revised and the EP should legislate along with the Council in all areas (awaiting its recomposition into two Chambers (citizens and states) when the European government is set up). Mr Toulemon believes that the creation of a formal institutional avant-garde is unnecessary (since a "rearguard" is forming of its own accord among Member States that refuse or will refuse to accept certain realities in terms of currency, defence, or fighting international crime). The rearguard could obviously not oppose the progress desired by the majority. Mr Toulemon does add, however, that the reforms that are possible in 2004 should be accompanied by a political declaration recognising the rights of states which later want to create a federation, preferably within the current Union, which is not so very different from the institutionalised avant-garde recommended by Jacques Delors or Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.
Geography can wait. Europe's presence in the international arena is obviously the subject of several suggestions in the Toulemon project and the contribution to creating a better world order should become one of the EU's recognised values (alongside freedom, solidarity, etc). As for the geographical extension of the EU, setting a definitive border today would be a source of conflict and create more problems than it solves. The author takes a position on two points: a) it is unthinkable that Russia might join in the future since its sheer mass would unbalance the Union, most of Russia's territory being in Asia; and b) accession negotiations with Turkey can only be opened when the Kurdish and Cyprus problems have been settled in a peaceful, democratic manner.
The important details. Numerous specific reforms have been put forward: i) economic policies should be coordinated using the "Community method"; ii) the continuity of essential public services (health, transport and communications) should be ensured by strictly limiting the right to strike; iii) the extension of international organised crime calls for penal law and a European Public Ministry; iv) the EU's budget should be increased by means of several European taxes such as a tax on the profits of big companies and a tax on capital speculation, with a corresponding reduction in national budgets (since the European activities to be financed would cover the amounts currently provided from national budgets); v) sea pollution caused by oiltankers should fall under the exclusive competence of the EU, since Member States cannot provide effective protection on their own (this is an example of "back-to-front subsidiarity" from Member States to the Union rather than from the Union to the Member States); vi) protecting cultural and linguistic diversity justifies certain exceptions to the competition rules; vii) the EU should set the general framework for immigration by setting the total number of immigrants and admission criteria (including geographical origin); viii) the Charter of Rights should be accompanied by a Charter of Duties (such as paying taxes and taking part in common security, where necessary).
The objective of the Toulemon document is for his suggestions to be taken up as France's position in the upcoming reform negotiations.
Not compulsory reading. I have not mentioned the European Commission's governance document since I feel that it is talked about too often, especially since it has not been published yet. It is useful, offering reference points that can improve the day-to-day management of the Union but is irrelevant to the big issue of the future of Europe. I think it is important not to exaggerate its importance; it should remain an internal institutional document and not attempt to get public opinion involved. I also feel that efforts should not be made - this is exactly what is happening and potential readers are hardly queuing up.
(F.R.)