Jean-Louis Bourlanges doesn't think so. MEP Jean-Louis Bourlanges has crossed the Rubicon, openly stating what many quietly think (or are beginning to think), namely that an EU with 25 ore more member states cannot become a political union and it will be necessary to move towards "two Europes". He has explicitly said that there will have to be a combination of a political Europe of some countries and a broader, less ambitious Europe (see our bulletin of 19 February, p. 9).
Jacques Delors' vision. Is it necessary to recall that some statesmen who have played, and are still playing, a fundamental role in the unification of Europe have been saying something similar for a long time? The idea of "Strong Europe and Geographical Europe" comes from Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. In his current post, he has to seek unity, but changes in the Convention's work might lead him to the starting point. Jacques Delors untiringly explains that "great Europe" has to have three aims - peace and stability; economic development with a high level of cohesion; and preserving the identity of participating countries. The "differentiation" that already exists for the currency and for Schengen should apply to the rest - only countries that wish, and are actually able to, will participate tomorrow in moving beyond the three essential aims of "great Europe". But Jacques Delors has a positive view of great Europe as something extraordinary in and of itself, a rupture with the last millennia of our continent - the end of war, political stability, freedom and democracy for all, balanced economic and social development.
Necessary changes in France and Germany. The impression that Jean-Louis Bourlanges' ideas leave is a certain disdain for countries that are not in the central group. His ambitious plan would have to be launched by France and Germany via an "agreement open to all" with common foreign and defence policy and co-ordinated budget and economic policies, governed by a "highly integrated supranational power" and funded by a budget made up of national contributions, which would start at between 0.5% and 1% of each countries' GDP. This plan presupposes changes in France and Germany themselves at first. Paris has to get over its "incapacity to think in an integrated, supranational way" by giving up "intergovernmental vertigo". Germany has to "convert to power" by accepting the idea of having (along with the other participating European countries) an influence on the balance of the globe. Bourlanges says that if this plan is implemented, "many states will join the common organisation as quickly as possible, the others would be marginalised".
Those hesitating will not be marginalised, but… I don't like the word "but". Nobody should be "marginalised". The Danes are very good Europeans (they proved this again during their recent Presidency), although they do not share all the political ambitions. The Norwegians and Swiss have their place in Europe while remaining outside the EU. And central and East European countries should be welcomed as a formidable support, participating at any rate in what (as was explained above) is perhaps essential. I believe that the day when it is clarified that nobody is attempting to weaken the transatlantic link, there will be more central and East European countries wanting to be more integrated in Europe than we imagine. The split won't be between old and new Member States. I feel that the "eight country letter" and the views of the Vilnius group have been over-dramatised - a high ranking French commentator even called on France not to ratify the new accession treaties! But various candidate countries should not imagine that the existing "federal" aspects of the Union (like the funding of farmers from the European budget and the programmed and automatic right of regions lagging behind to receive support) can continue of the EU is reduced to no more than a free trade zone (see my column of 10 January).
Freedom for those who desire to go further. There are some other aspects of the Bourlanges plan I find perplexing, like the wording foreseen for the parliamentary aspect (an assembly made up of the competent committees of the national parliaments). But this is not the main point. The main point is that we start to consider how to make progress, even if not all countries in the enlarged Europe agree on the new aims. Alain Lamassoure has put forward a bold idea to work on - only countries declaring agreement with the outcome of the Convention would be invited to the conclusive IGC, to ensure the IGC does not fail (a single "No" would block everything, or mean that ambitions have to be scaled back). Not saying "We want to make "two Europes" but keep our ambitions. Countries that don't share the ambitions will not join all the different parts, but that is for them to decide, not us.
(F.R.)