A certain amount of relief. It's with a certain amount of relief that I read the following declaration by Chris Patten in "Le Monde" of 25 January: "For Great Britain, the question remains: are we in or are we out? Are we semi-detached or are we an integral part of the process consisting in affirming Europe's place in the world? As long as we have not decided, it will be difficult for Great Britain to share leadership with Germany and France". I'm relieved as I note that even British personalities are pondering this very question. The European Commissioner for External Relations, speaking of the British in the first person ("are we …"), expresses the same doubts, the same perplexities that have been raised in this section on several occasions, and especially the same demand: the United Kingdom must decide.
For a certain number of years, the answer was evaded: in the name of pragmatism; Great Britain had secured that the EU should not raise the question. This pragmatism consisted in seizing the possibilities of progress that presented themselves on a daily basis, without considering where things were heading. Now, with the Convention preparing a Constitution for Europe, with the CFSP and with the ESDP, it's no longer possible. The existence of convinced pro-Europeans of British nationality is not placed into question; suffice it to reflect on the intelligent action of Andrew Duff to be aware of that. At governmental level, I am of those who believe in the sincerity of Tony Blair, and I have had several opportunities to say so in writing; in my opinion, he would dearly like his country to be at the heart of European construction. I also believe that the representative of the British Government in the Convention, Peter Hain, is carrying out his duties in good faith. But both must take account of public opinion and the press, whose hostility towards European integration is not waning. And even within the Government, some stances are disturbing.
Mr. MacShane in favour of a "down-to-earth" Europe. Reader, are you aware of the article published in "Le Monde" last week by the British Minister for European Affairs, Denis MacShane? The title is: "In favour of a down-to-earth Europe". Here is the somewhat eloquent attack: "Is the European Union in the process of putting the political cart before the economic horses?" Mr. MacShane's thesis is that Europe should focus its efforts on the economic challenges that are economic growth and employment. Yet, all EU institutions are obviously fighting for these goals, but the British minister makes of this Europe's sole objective. Nobody disputes that the pressure must be kept up for the liberalisation of the energy sector, the "single sky", the European patent and other reforms. Mr. MacShane adds harsh criticism of the trade unions who "prefer forging alliances with the most conservative elements of business, local pressure groups and even churches, to put a stop to reforms", and he prophesises: "one day, historians will be dumfounded at the idea that in 2003 the EU still devoted close to half of its budget to farm subsidies". His prophesy is condensed in a single question: "Will the year 2003 see the big return to down-to-earth Europe?". (1)
This prophesy and this concept of Europe are not exactly identical to those expressed by Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who chairs the Convention responsible for designing the future Europe. VGE declared in his latest interview: "After fifty years devoted to economic integration, with the single currency as crown, we have arrived at the beginning of a second stage that may last just as long. It is characterised … by the acceptance of the Union's political dimension."
A final remark. Mr. MacShane states that "down-to-earth Europe" is "the one for which we laid the first stone of European construction in the 1950s". His claims should be hedged from two points of view: a) Mr. MacShane's "we" can hardly refer to his compatriots, who had refused to participate in laying the "first stone" and rather tried to demolish it with a "free-trade area" project; b) the Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman project was not exactly a "down-to-earth" Europe, but a political vision for the future. (2) (F.R.)
------------------
(1) In "Le Monde", the expression "down-to-earth" was translated as "terre a terre", whereas we believe the expression "les pieds sur terre" would have been preferable, given that the former has a negative connotation but the latter seems closer to what Mr. MacShane had in mind. It was thus that, with this unfortunate heading, Mr. MacShane was presented to the French public and international readers of "Le Monde".
(2) I tried to prove this in this section of 14 May of last year, referring to the volume "A change of hope", superbly edited by the "Jean Monnet pour l'Europe" Foundation.