In the more recent of these short accounts, I have tried to present a synthesis of the state of work of the Convention, on the basis of remarks by its president, debates in plenary and initial results of the working groups. Efforts at synthesis obviously overlook individual stances and at times minority ones. Yet, some of these deserve being pointed out, be they interventions by members of the Convention or external contributions. I shall now remedy some shortcomings.
Pascal Lamy is not at all reassured. I was impressed by the tone of the recent stance taken by Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner. It is a concerned, not to say anguished tone. Published in "Le Monde" of 12 September, his text places emphasis on urgency: "in a few weeks, it will be too late. The political stakes will have disappeared under negotiating tactics on institutional hardware. If Europe misses this rendez-vous, Europeans will have to give up on weighing on the affairs of the world". They will, for a long time, be relegated to resignation or protest, or at least powerlessness". According to him:
- the European model, that of a social market economy that combines competition with solidarity, "is today threatened by the way in which European integration is being achieved";
- Europe without a defence policy, without armaments industry, could not claim to play a role in the world. Yet, "it currently accepts its dependence (…) If Europe does not pay the price of its defence, it will pay even more for its dependence";
- "social Europe has been taken hostage by the non-tax Europe. Implicitly designated victims: solidarity and public services that we place on the defensive instead of modernising them";
- without sufficient co-ordination of economic policies at Community level, Europe does not exploit all the margin of growth opened by the changeover to the euro;
- both in the IMF and the World Bank, Europe has opted for division: Member states vote separately and carry little weight vis-à-vis the United States.
Pascal Lamy says he is convinced that only a deepening of the "good old Community method, and its gradual extension to foreign and defence policy", will allow for the European model to be safeguarded. Otherwise, Europe will be "confined to moral tourism for decades to come" (in other words wandering about the world preaching morality without weighing on the facts).
Is the situation so dramatic? Whatever, Pascal Lamy's cry is invigorating.
The Eurosceptics are not backing down. Welcoming last week the direction of the national parliamentarians within the Convention (they increasingly understand the Community reality and are taking part in the work constructively), I may have given the impression that it was the attitude of almost all the members in question. I must therefore add, to be complete, that, at the same time, the parliamentarians of the other shore are radicalising their stance and strengthening their opposition, be they Eurosceptic MEPs or some national parliamentarians on the same wavelength. Their stances or documents handed to the Convention in general preach the demolition of what has been built over half a century, with a moderate language (like the skilful Peter Bonde), others with iconoclastic fury (like William Abitbol). To those wanting to document themselves on this direction, I suggest they read the contribution to the work of the Convention of British Conservative David Heathcoat Amory. He recommends an institutional system in which the European right of legislative initiative is handed to national parliaments, which would also provide the final approval to EU legislation. The Commission would play the role of simple secretariat. The powers of the EU would be strictly limited; in particular, all budgetary headings concerning culture, European heritage, etc.., would be transferred to the Council of Europe (see our bulletin of 19 September, p.6).
A partisan of a European super State. I attributed too much of a unanimous nature (in the wake of Valery Giscard d'Estaing himself) to the rejection of a European super-State. In fact, Mario Segni MEP has published a press release to express his support for a super-State, stating: "the word is ugly but the idea is very nice", as, in his opinion, it corresponds to the goals and ambitions of the fathers of Europe. He considers that a "European government" lies at the end of the EU's road, if we want common defence, a European foreign policy, a common attitude to immigration, etc.. I believe that it is to a large extent a question of terminology. To reject a super-State means to respect national identities and subsidiarity, but in no way means renouncing the goals cited by Mario Segni. (F.R.)