A dead or resuscitated alliance? Let's be modest about it. The very same day that I invited readers not to pay excessive heed to the proliferation of announcements of bilateral or trilateral alliances between EU countries (see this heading of 21 February), two major European dailies gave diametrically opposed interpretations of how the Franco-German couple is evolving. A front page article in "Le Figaro" announced the "death of the Franco-German engine". In just as eye-catching a position, the "Suddeutsche Zeitung" announced the reconstitution of the Paris-Berlin affiliation, revealing what it claimed to be a secret pact between the Finance Ministers, Laurent Fabius and Hans Eichel, to defend the role of the State in the economy. It seems obviously to me that it is a question of convergence over specific issues and not of alliances.
While noting my failure in attempting to discredit the abusive use of announced alliances, I continue to believe that convergence over specific issues in no way prefigures lasting and exclusive alliances, and even less "directorates". This has again been vigorously affirmed by Mr Aznar. It is not surprising that the Socialist governments of Paris and Bonn are more in favour than others of a strong State presence in the economy and a certain amount of control over capital markets - but ideological differences exist. The Barcelona Summit should endeavour to reconcile the more liberal ideas of some and the more regulatory ideas of the others. The European Commission is already sketching out compromises in many documents that it has already drafted and t hat it continues to fine-tune with a view to this Summit. And no-one questions the validity of the "Lisbon Strategy".
Half-yearly rotation that has its good points. One of the institutional reforms that the Convention on the Future of Europe will have to discuss is already almost the subject of an agreement of principle - that of the Council. The ineffectiveness of the current system of half-yearly rotating Presidency is criticised by all commentators and by those members of the Convention who have already expressed their views. But, just at a time when alternative solutions are beginning to proliferate, one voice calls for consideration to be taken of several of the positive elements of the rotating system. And this voice is not to be ignored, as it comes from a study carried out by the association "Notre Europe" under Jacques Delors, devoted to the Spanish Presidency of the Community Council. According to its author, Carlos Closa, Professor of Political Sciences at the University of Saragossa, "just the fact of holding the Presidency has the merit of a mechanism that exalts the values of integration and moderates nationalism". I have asked several political personalities (of Spanish nationality, like Ana Palacio and José Maria Gil-Robles, but not only) about this pedagogical impact that the Presidency has, and in every case the answer has been in the affirmative, not only for the current Member States but above all for the future members. They cite: - the fact that, for six months, Europe is the focus of media attention, and hence more visible; the sensation caused by hosting the most powerful men and women in Europe; and the fact that the political class and the administration must focus on the European problem. The trouble is that, in an enlarged Europe, once the "European term" has gone by, the next will not come until fourteen years later. In the past, when the Member States were far fewer, preparing a summit was often carried out by those who had taken part in the earlier summit, thus ensuring continuity and using their knowledge of the issues to advantage. With 25 or 27 Member States, such "continuity" will no longer exist, and the "visibility" effect will be so rare …
So these few comments do not change the overall assessment of the rotating Presidency (that Jacques Delors calls "stupid"), but do introduce an element of visibility and pedagogy that should not be ignored, and which would at least justify a certain mobility of meetings (especially the Summits), despite practical inconveniences. The perplexities over the British formula (confirmed by Minister Jack Straw after the expectations of his colleague, Peter Hain) remain. But it is a good thing that the debate has been launched.
A balanced Presidency, or not? Speaking of the Convention's Praesidium, I had noted a certain balance between the main political tendencies: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing representing the liberal tendency, Giuliano Amato the Socialist tendency, Jean-Luc Dehaene the Christian Democrat tendency (see this heading on 2 February). On behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group at the European Parliament, Colette Flesch and the president of this group, Graham Watson, drew my attention to the fact that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, when MEP, had left the presidency of the Liberal, Democrat and Reform Group to join the EPP Group. So, "If Mr Giscard d'Estaing represents a political tendency in Europe then it is - of his own accord - the Christian Democrat tendency and not the liberal tendency". Well, that's their opinion, and I respect it. (F.R.)