Tony Blair's efforts at remaining solidly attached to Community Europe and have his country play a central role, while making concessions to a large part of its citizens who have a phobia of that Europe, deserve praise. I'm sure that he is as convinced as you and me (or almost) of the need to strengthen and deepen the EU; but at the same time he is aware of the need to be cautious in what he says to reassure, not the radical Eurosceptics (who could?), but the mass of the population so heavily indoctrinated by a press often seditious in its opposition to European integration. Tony Blair knows what he is risking: either a press gone berserk if he is pro-European without sufficient precaution, or isolation in the Convention if he is too negative. Difficult balancing act! He thus speaks out as much as possible in favour of the strengthening of Community construction, but placing special emphasis on his opposition to a federal Super-state (excessive precaution as nobody is in favour of a centralised European State); he wants a strong Europe of defence, but tied to NATO and the United States; he backs the strengthening of the European Commission, but at the same time a stable president of the European Council…
What emerges from the balancing act of his speech last week in Cardiff (see our bulletin of 30 November, p.4)? Let's separate his stances into two, sparing statements of principle, very positive, as they had already characterised his speech in Birmingham.
1. Aspects for which Tony Blair backs the deepening of the Union. By qualifying as "nonsense" the rigidity of those who claim that integration has attained the maximum acceptable level, Tony Blair cited areas where, in his opinion, it would be wise to move forward at European level: combating crime and illegal immigration, defence, economic reforms. As for the euro, he reaffirmed that, in a single market, a single currency is reasonable: his country will join as soon as the conditions are right.
Institutionally-speaking, he spoke in favour of strengthening all European institutions (Council, Commission, Parliament and the Court of Justice) and especially in favour of qualified majority voting within the Council and for a strong Commission. A weak Commission is "contrary to British interests"; its authority needs strengthening so that it can ensure that EU rules are respected and interfere effectively when they are breached. Backing for certain intergovernmental elements (see below) is no weapon against European institutions.
2. Support for traditional British stances. Mr. Blair is in favour of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as common declaration to all European citizens, but he cannot agree to its incorporation in the Constitutional Treaty, as certain aspects would be imposed over national legislation (he cited industrial relations). Foreign policy must essentially remain in the hands of the Council, increasing the powers of the High Representative, who would have the right of initiative and chair the Foreign Affairs Council, and who would remain separate from the Commissioner for external relations (one has not to "Communitise" CFSP through the back door). ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) must be complementary to NATO: for Europe's foreign and defence policies to truly exist it is essential that they tend "towards the United States".
Mr. Blair backs a stable presidency of the European Council. To reassure small countries that fear a "board" of the big ones, he opts for the formula of a "team presidency", each specialised Council being chaired by a member of this team for a sufficiently long period of time. Only the president of the European Council, symbol of the Union, would be "more permanent". As we see, it's a formula opposed to that recommended by the Commission, which suggests a half-yearly presidency for the Summit (so as to avoid dualism with the Commission president) and longer presidencies for specialised Councils, for reasons of efficiency. Tony Blair is also against the European Parliament electing the Commission's president, as the Commission would become prisoner of the majority that elected him or her and could no longer be impartial (which does not mean that it must be apolitical).
In search of support. At the same time, the British Prime Minister has again begun spinning his web of contacts and alliances, especially with Mr. Aznar and Mr. Berlusconi, who seem to him the closest to his institutional concepts, without neglecting the representatives of certain small countries nor, in his intentions, Jacques Chirac. Tony Blair's efforts must be viewed sympathetically, on one condition: they must not have the result of reducing the European ambitions of other countries. It would be too high a price to pay for a complete British presence in a renewed EU. (F.R.)