The Christmas and New Year holidays were not short of reflections and a certain intuition. During these two weeks the hypothesis of making the current Europe into two separate and limited entities was in practice, laid to rest. The problematic of a two-speed Europe, strengthened co-operation, the avant-guard and pioneering group (it's not the name that counts) was clarified. As a result, the objective, the draft that has widely been agreed to, does not advocate further construction outside the Union. Following the failure of the December summit on the Constitution, a cacophony of different positions was sounded out. The divergences, however, were more apparent than real, as they referred to two different ideas: initiatives on the margins of the Union (opposition was sharp, including that from the new President of the European Council: see yesterday's bulletin) or initiatives in the Constitution (encouraged; see this section on 20 December).
France clarifies its conception of "Europe's architecture of tomorrow". All the same, doubts still persist. In particular, the attitude of Jacques Chirac in the final phase of the Brussels summit, provoked some worries. Some participants and observers had the impression that the president of the French republic wanted, or at least, was unafraid of splits occurring over the Constitution. He sought an immediate declaration from founding countries and support from most Member States for the Convention's draft Constitution in an effort to isolate the countries harbouring fundamental reservations about the text. His initiative was not supported and was considered as inopportune and premature. In the final press conference, Jacques Chirac clarified his idea of a "pioneering group" (see our special bulletin on 14 December pp 4 and 5) but did not, however dispel all of the worries. Spanish prime minister, José Maria Aznar was undoubtedly referring to France, above all, when he spoke about some of the countries, "that came to the summit with the clear determination of not reaching a compromise". According to Aznar, Spain "wanted the agreement" and rejected the criticism made ofPoland and the Italian presidency (see our bulletin of 31 December p 5). A document from the foreign affairs minister Dominique de Villepin outlined quite clearly France's conception of the "architecture of the Europe of tomorrow" (document summarised in our bulletin of 23 December p 5).
In practice, France sees Europe as consisting of a "single foundation" represented by "the European area of prosperity and solidarity" involving most of the single market, transport, innovation, research, training and also- a very significant detail- regional community aid and major infrastructure. In all areas, common rules will apply for all. "Additional efforts will be needed for integration will bring countries together that seek to go further" but the essential element highlighted three times "in the provisions of the future Constitution" and "preserving the cohesion of the European institutions while creating specific provisions within them for the pioneer groups". This much is clear: no initiatives outside the Union nor coded intergovernmental co-operation for replacing the Community method; the European institutions will keep (notably the European Parliament and European Commission) their general competencies with ad hoc competencies for the avant guard. This is better, clearer, simpler and above all, more realistic, than what currently exists for the Euro zone etc.
These clarifications were aimed essentially at the Benelux countries which will certainly be taking part in all future strengthened co-operation but for whom there would be a danger of lacking any weight if this was organised on an intergovernmental basis. The political initiative involving Iran was informative: Belgium was in the avant-guard in relation to the Europe of defence (it had organised the conference of the four in this respect) but had been left on the side lines from the Franco-British and German initiative on Iran's nuclear capability; the three large countries also announced similar initiatives…small and medium Member States, particularly new Member States, would do well to reflect upon them.
From Jacques Delors to Romano Prodi. It appears obvious that such a significant document could not have been launched by the foreign affairs minister without the approval of the prime minister and, above all, by the president of the republic, who in France, represents the supreme authority in foreign and defence matters. Malicious remarks about Jacques Chirac preparing the way for short-circuiting the Community institutions and going back to intergovernmental co-operation were therefore excessive; and the tendency for getting rid of cohesion policy is becoming less apparent as the text of Mr de Villepin clearly locates "regional aid" in the competencies of the greater Europe.
It is interesting to note to what point the architecture of Mr de Villepin corresponds to that of Jacques Delors, which the latter has expressed over the last three years, namely: a clear definition of the fundamental but limited number of objectives of the "greater Europe" (including respect for the national identities of all Member States) and "differentiation" between the other Member States, which has always existed and is "a factor for dynamism" (the Euro will not exist if we had waited the unanimity of Member States to take action). A similar vision can be observed today from the current president of the Commission, Romano Prodi. In his first interview at the beginning of the year he declared, "Approving the Convention's draft remains the main priority". Initiatives can only be taken from within (this framework for going further and faster, as we did so with the Euro, without destroying the fabric of common rules". Mr Prodi added, "but if the situation rests blocked over the year, someone can (perhaps should) take the initiative to go further. This could be the founding countries. Or else, and it's even desirable, that a mixed group of Member States, old and new, and who share the same European ambitions, do so. The European train cannot indefinitely move at the speed of the slowest wagon, especially, given that I get the feeling that such and such a wagon does not intend to move forward and is even intent on going backwards".
A clear schema. The schema is now therefore clear: priority on the Constitution; initiatives outside the current Union will only be envisaged if the Constitution remains blocked for the rest of the year. Even the country that appears the most impatient, Belgium, now appears to be more concerned with safeguarding the existing institutional framework that has been tried and tested. In his November speech at the University of Humbolt in Berlin, Guy Verhofstadt denounced the attitude of some of the countries rejecting the political goals of the European project by creating the impression that they just wanted the EU to be a "union for economic co-operation or worse still, essentially a source of financial aid". In the event of the IGC failing he envisaged the emergence of a "hard core, a European federation within the EU". Perhaps he also reflected on the risk that this new creation (with an intergovernmental character) could do by practically reducing the role of small and medium sized countries to zero. The Franco-German couple, which in a Europe of 25, will be just an important element in a much vaster system, will on the other hand represent a genuine directorate in a small federation. Since the December summit, it has been observed that the Belgian prime minister no longer uses the terms "avant-garde" without adding the adjective, "Community". In the Europe of the Six, Belgium, the Netherlands and even Luxembourg held the presidency of the European Commission as well as other essential roles; in a small intergovernmental federation, this could be less likely. Robert Toulemon, whose reflections played a role in the preparation of the Convention wrote, "If the avant-garde is expected to be organised on an intergovernmental basis, initial difficulties, divergent points of view or interests, which are not subject to supranational arbitration, could provoke paralysis and would heartily mocked by countries on the outside".
VGE's vision and the Hungarian position. And of course, there is Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. He should be listened to, if only because the draft Constitution bears his name. On Christmas eve, he thus responded to the question of whether a "hard core" should be launched, "no, not for the moment. Let's focus our efforts on the adoption of the Constitution, let's discuss with the countries that are hesitating, let's try and understand their demands". Should the founding countries assert their desire to get the Constitution approved, with the Six, if necessary?" His answer: "Perhaps they should do it if they don't manage to get it adopted by the 25". Valéry Giscard d'Estaing does not believe that the Franco-German couple can act alone: "the group or founding countries is perhaps more qualified because it best reflects the current European situation: this includes the largest, Germany and the smallest, Luxembourg. It presents a diversity of political directions, which make of a more representative panel. Other countries support the same positions: Greece, Hungary, Denmark. Let's speak about the ensemble of these countries and imagine their role".
The reference to Hungary is important as its prime minister Peter Medgyessy was explicit about being part of the possible avant-garde, even if it is premature to talk about it now (see our bulletin of 30 December p 4). He thought it justified that Germany had more weight in the Council, not only because it has the largest population but also because it "feeds the Community budget" more than the others. In his opinion, Poland is finding itself "trapped in a hole which it built itself". I would like to add that according to the indiscretions of diplomatic sources, positions taken by Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Latvia are close to the Hungarian position.
The calendar and system for beginning the work still needs looking at. I'll do it tomorrow.
(F.R.)