For talented speakers there is no substitute for the open debate, which allow for a direct response to the positions of the other contributors and calls for a certain amount of improvisation and certainly sometimes leads the speakers to say what is not in the official written speeches. I have just received the European Movement's (France) conference report from last year. The theme of the conference was, "Constructing the Political Future of Europe" (1) and reading certain contributions it's as much a pleasure to read as it is edifying. I will not deprive the reader from the contribution by Michel Rocard, with an introduction by Alain Lammassoure and a point of information by Mr Toulemon.
Heat up the Euro-tepids - Get rid of the Eurosceptics. Alain Lamassoure MEP and former Minister, believes that the first obstacles to European integration are the national governments, which are loath to give up just a fraction of their power to a European body. Overall, government leaders are not "Eurosceptic" but "Euro-tepid", a neologism that speaks for itself. Let's lend our ears to Mr Lamassoure, "Tony Blair is the most European among the British but taking into account British public opinion, he remains tepid. The Italians have just elected a man who has a strong personality but who is a Euro-tepid. I have a lot of admiration for José-Maria Aznar in Spain but on a European level, he remains cautious. As for the political tandem governing France…(a pause to gauge the public's reaction), I share your view".
The Euro-tepids need warming up. But there are genuine Eurosceptics. If the Convention gives rise to a Treaty, Mr Lamassoure believes that, "We need to use the opportunity to get rid of the Eurosceptic countries. Because we need to understand that if by chance there are fifteen that say no, everything will collapse. Imagine what it will be like when there are thirty of us, with countries where the governments in power are for or against Europe. This applies to Malta. I don't want to become a hostage tomorrow, I told their Ambassador, not of Malta or any other country and neither should other countries become hostages of France. That's why we need a new text, legally inspired and politically new in order to say: this text applies to all those that accept and ratify it and only to them. The others, too bad, they can stay on the sidelines. It's their problem and not ours".
A former Prime Minister in brilliant form. Michel Rocard is currently an MEP, who sparkled with both brilliance and originality. He began by ironically describing those who because of electoral reasons present themselves as adversaries to pro-European sentiments even when they largely believe the contrary: "Here in France we are in an extremely intense electoral battle with the different sides pitched against each other. My situation would see me up against Alain Lamassoure, whom I would immediately declare my opponent and whose vision I don't share. However, I agree with everything he has just said. I wouldn't want to make things too difficult for him! (…) I am a fanatic for European construction, with probably, from time to time and in a way that is intermittent, the agreement of my party."
Only Denmark is missing. Why a fanatic? Let's listen to the speaker, "What we have already achieved in Europe is a miracle. This continent is no doubt the most war-like in the world. For eight hundred years France has fought against twelve of the fourteen Member States; excluding Denmark and Finland". At this point he is interrupted by Mr Lamassoure who reminds him that François Mitterand made the same remark in 1995 in his last speech to MEPs in Strasbourg: 'my country has historically been at war with all your countries, except Denmark and I would really like to know why'. Mr Rocard continued, "Putting an end to this because this unifying and reconciliatory Union is a formidable and historic achievement (…) Practically all the European countries have fought each other. What's happening in Europe is absolutely fabulous, this art of peace making is of gigantic significance (…) European construction has in fact been obtained at lightening speed."
The "Greater Switzerland" dream is over. We need to continue but in what direction? For Michel Rocard it's quite clear: a united European must be a world power, not for imposing some kind of hegemony but in contributing to international governance. This is not the generally held opinion. This objective is, "beyond what at least ten or eleven Member States are currently prepared to accept. Many Member States joined the Union with the dream of creating a greater Switzerland (…) to ensure a certain democratic authentication and the belonging to a calm area that doesn't interfere too much in world affairs. The greater Switzerland dream is over but a great deal of public opinion subscribed to it and voted for it. The question is knowing whether such an intelligent choice requires or demands a Constitution rather than a Treaty. But there are a lot of us in this room who want Europe to exist with a foreign policy and that it accomplishes its role of providing a counterweight to the American vision of the world, a great democracy of which there is no doubt but which is, all the same, rather one-sided". To avoid any misunderstanding, Michel Rocard explained that, "The most urgent problem in the world is that of world governance. A leadership is already installed, it is American. In cultural terms, there are only three candidates: one is western, with US pre-eminence, the second is Chinese and the third is Islamic. My choice is made, I prefer western leadership, therefore American. We must avoid falling into the trap of anti-Americanism, which is stupid and damages us. Hover, the problem is that American leadership is of a very young country of which two thirds of their parliamentarians do not have a passport, which is sufficient in itself to explain why they ignore the rest of the world and whose rather heavy diplomacy has created a degree of damage, very visible in Africa where no-one is looking, it's a little less clear in the Middle East but real, nonetheless. This American leadership is in real need of a counterweight, especially with the current administration. This represents Europe's work."
Who influences British public opinion? In order for Europe to play its role, "the British, who in the area of foreign policy are key, finally understand what they still fail to grasp, that the Channel is far more narrow than the Atlantic. This geographical discovery takes a long time to ripen". Mr Rocard's analysis of the British situation is as follows, "We need Great Britain, a country that is slowly reaching European maturity. Since the election of Tony Blair (…) there have only been steps forward. And when we know that the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress want to join the Euro, we can understand that the reticence of public opinion is influenced by the press barons, two of whom you know, one Canadian, the other Australian, in other words, they're not British and who don't have territorial interests compatible with those of Great Britain's ordinary citizens but whose linguistic interest is shared with the UK and which they don't want mixed up with others. This shapes British public opinion on a daily basis."
Following a grammatical and conceptual order. Michel Rocard is calling again for a new Treaty that doesn't necessarily have to be Constitutional but which must be readable. I'll let the speaker explain again, which is better, "I am for a Constitution, naturally. But the issue is to know whether an intelligent choice exists of requesting or demanding a Constitution rather than a well-written and constituent Treaty. We are unsure about it because the last three treaties, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice were written in a way that was totally unreadable. The Commission knew how to write a treaty but when the Council took over things it became incomprehensible. I haven't read the Treaty of Maastricht, it's beyond me. It's impossible: even a treaty that stuck to grammatical and conceptual order would be a good thing (…) The Constitution? That's us, the French, who wanted to sell this idea, we like the idea so much that we've had thirteen of them over the last 200 years, which means that a degree of respectability is lost. I am for a clarification of the treaties, a more logical rewriting, I am for a Constitution, if we're capable of selling the idea but I will never fight for the word, 'Constitution', rather than a Treaty, which would involve the same work".
The avant-garde righted. I also promised a passage by Robert Toulemon. He clarifies his idea of self-exclusion to the avant-garde (which today even seems to please Valéry Giscard d'Estaing). Mr Toulemon explained, "In France, we committed a serious mistake, including that of leading European figures by creating the impression that we wanted a self-proclaimed and selected avant-garde. This has caused sharp resentment, particularly in candidate countries. The only differentiation that Europe has is self-exclusion. By making an ambitious Constitutional pact, we know that a certain number of Member States and candidate countries wouldn't accept it. We won't place ourselves in the impossible situation of never reaching unanimity. That avant-garde will not be made up by arbitrary selection. It is they who don't want to share their destiny and their sovereignty, which is self-excluding. This will be up to them and not to us".
The reader shouldn't complain. My chronicle is finished. The reader could tell me that I shouldn't be too tired: I've only quoted other people's speeches. My answer is twofold. The first part is seasonal. During the week following Easter, with no meetings of the Convention or Presidium, a brief chronicle has been keeping an account of the situation: initial indications on the direction of President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the Toulemon project, some commentaries on the details and today a debate going back to last year, but not edited until yesterday and which is very instructive. My second response focuses on the background: instead of reading Riccardi, you have read Rocard and Lammassoure. Who can complain about that?
---------------
(1) "La lettre des Européens, special issue No. 13: construire l'avenir de l'Europe, contribution au débat pour 2004". Mouvement Européen - France. 95 rue de Rennes, 75006 Paris. Tel. 01 45 49 93 93