National identities (and election results) to be respected. The issue that has livened up Convention circles the most over the past few days has perhaps been that of the "social dimension" of the future treaty. I admit I feel in somewhat of a dilemma over this. The Convention cannot dodge the social issue, as subjects such as living and working conditions or the fight against exclusion, poverty and unemployment are at the top of the list of concerns expressed by citizens. But the main basic social principles are already in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, I believe, there are two things that go against including binding norms or over-detailed guidelines in a constitutional treaty.
The first is that the safeguard of national identities, which is implicit in the concept of a "federation of nation States" means respecting the traditions and choices of each country. Some nations accept the fact that State receipts exceed 60% of GDP (Sweden) or that they are not far off (Denmark, Finland) as the State guarantees in exchange that every citizen has a very high level and quality of services (health, education, training, etc.). Others prefer lighter tax pressure leading to a fall in State income and spending. It is obvious that public provision will be different in both cases. It is not a question of harmonising or making uniform across Europe choices that depend specifically on the nature of each nation, its history, and the trust that it puts in the State's administrative ability. The second reason for my perplexity lies in the requirement that the rules of democracy should be left to play themselves out, and not therefore freeze the choices that may vary with each election. A Socialist majority will not have the same policy as a right-wing majority. Social regimes may be changed every four or five years depending on the results of the elections. Europe does not have the right to take it upon itself to establish permanent systems (which is the real objective of some political forces). It is therefore not possible to speak of a "social Europe", except if such limits are clearly defined. It is perhaps yet again Emilio Gabaglio, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) who has found the most appropriate solution by declaring that it is not a matter of discussing concrete policies but of ensuring that the values and the principles of the European social model are included in the future Treaty.
The Convention should avoid any pompous debate that would inevitably slide into demagogy and which could provoke dangerous division, to no real advantage.
Are the "two Europes" becoming topical again? European Commissioner Michel Barnier is chairing the working group on "defence" which is called upon to play a special role in the work of the Convention (see this column on 26 September). One can therefore understand how important it is to know the guidelines he has set out. He summarised them in an interview with the daily La Tribune: "We are calling for the future Treaty to contain new moves forward with regards common defence policy. We cannot be credible without a strengthened operational capacity. But this must be done in the institutional framework of the European Union, otherwise the Union will lose all political credibility. Strong budgetary commitments are needed, as well as joint military programmes and more extensive cooperation on armaments. The countries interested must be able to form a vanguard". This small text confirms that: a) the new Treaty should have a substantial "defence" chapter, covering the armaments sector; b) the European military force should be operational; and c) without unanimity, the countries interested must have the possibility to move forward among themselves. I had already stressed on 26 September that the alternative would not be renunciation of CFSP but achievement of CFSP between the large countries outside the Community framework, implying a real directorate. Michel Barnier confirmed that he would work towards achieving this in the Community framework, including all the countries that so wish. Thus, the principle of the two Europes - Europe area and Europe power according to the former terminology of Giscard d'Estaing himself - becomes topical again.
Respect and reticence. Institutional schemes - galore. Projects succeed each other and a common base seems to be gradually forming on a number of principles. Apart from the "sovereignists", several projects converge regarding respect of the autonomy of the three fundamental institutions: Parliament, Council and Commission. On the other hand, there is still reticence about the European Council as the highest point of the edifice. The Commission's independence is admitted in principle but some formulae suggested would make it dependent on the Council in practice. There is no (at least not yet) real awareness of how disastrous it would be for the "Community method" if the Commission's autonomy as a representative of the general European interest were to be weakened. I shall come back to this in detail. (F.R.)