Jacques Delors needs a little provocation. Like telling him that Europe is powerless in the fact of the challenges facing it for the future; seeing nothing but shortcomings and loopholes in the European project; saying that united Europe has achieved absolutely nothing in the social field - such false platitudes make his blood boil. So when the President of the Jean Monnet Foundation, Henri Rieben and the President of the Swiss Institute for Comparative Law, Pierre Widmer invited him to make the closing speech at a conference on "European integration: How and how far?" Jacques Delors was bound to accept, with a welcome ready tongue.
The first thing that struck me as I listened on Thursday evening in Lausanne was his positive outlook. A few weeks ago he called the ill gnawing away at Europe "the wasting disease": fashionable scepticism, a taste for complaining, pulling a plaintive, unhappy face while Europe is organising its riposte to the new internal and external challenges. Europeans must gain new confidence and convince themselves, he said, that building Europe can a) be within our reach. United Europe would be an area of peace, a framework for sustainable development balancing the opening of markets with the necessary legislation and a background against which we can make the most of our culture; b) be an operational project if we change our behaviour and overcome the "qualitative obstacle" by continuing to use the "Community method". An enlarged and effective Europe would then be "a laboratory for a reasonably mastered globalisation"; c) set an example, showing the way to balance North and South and bringing together different civilisations. Europe would then be proof that "rich against poor" was a "misuse of terminology" and would be in a position to make operational proposals at the Mexico conference in 2002.
But these objectives will only be achieved if the Laeken Summit next month accepts that the Convention to prepare for institutional reform can draw up solutions to four problems:
1. How the institutions work. According to Jacques Delors, there are too many EU legislative instruments at the moment (at least 15) whereas three would suffice. Europe's powers then need to be defined but not by drawing up a list of subject areas (which would hold things back since the situation is constantly changing) but by clearly listing areas to remain in the national domain. Delors sees four such areas (too linked to traditions, history and the mentality of Member States to be dealt with centrally): education, culture, health and social security. The EU institutions would continue to discuss these subjects but should not aim to pass legislation. At present, the Eurosceptics criticise the EU when it is absent ('What's Europe doing then?') and when it gets involved ('Europe wants to meddle in everything') - which is ridiculous. The EU should avoid announcing everything in advance (Europe will do this or that) and clarify the situation.
2. "Community method". Montesquieu's system does not apply to Europe, which has to keep its double executive powers (Council and Commission), its double legislative powers (Parliament and Council) and its Court of Justice. Only the Community method will also a 27-country EU to function. The Commission's right to take initiatives has to be respected, and the "General" Council has to play a full part along the lines of the Poos report recently approved by the European Parliament, distinguishing between executive and legislative tasks. Otherwise, the European Councils (Summits) would assume responsibilities that do not belong to them and it would be the heads of states' 'sherpas' that would prepare decisions. This would mean the death of the Community method and the victory of the intergovernmental method, run by the big countries, and all that entails.
3. Presidency of the EU. The EU should be customised. The system of changing the Presidency every six months (meaning every country holds the Presidency for six months every 13 and a half years) is "unrealistic and stupid". Instead, the European Council should nominate a "President of Europe" for 21/2 years, visible to all in Europe and outside.
4. "Differentiation" and the avant-garde. "Differentiation" already exists (we simply don't want to admit it) - Schengen, opting out, transition periods, etc. In a few weeks citizens will have the euro in their pockets - this would not have happened if the EU had waited for all 15 countries to agree. In a 27-country EU, an avant-garde open to all will be indispensable.
Jacques Delors concluded - if the Convention presents solutions for these four points, "it will be possible for us to be perfectly optimistic about Europe". (F.R.)