A. The three objectives of Great Europe.
"For a few years I have been calling for reasonable objectives to be set for Great Europe, holding back from the ambitions of the Maastricht Treaty. I suggest three objectives for Great Europe: an areas of active peace, a framework for sustainable development and an area of values experienced in the diversity of our cultures and traditions.
1. Area of peace and security. This implies stable borders with active coexistence of the majority and minorities. A historic revolution for some countries! This will require the EU to make a special effort in the Balkans.
I know that Bulgaria and Romania lag behind economically but they are not the most complex cases. On their borders it is not easy to travel from Yugoslavia, created by Treaty, to independent nations, but I ask would it be more difficult today to suggest to the countries of the former Yugoslavia to make a similar effort as Western Europe did for ECSC? In other words working together to understand one other better. This is one of the talents of the EU but the natural trend is for each country in these region to develop bilateral, economic and financial relations with Brussels at the moment. One has to learn to live together. It is by developing economic and social relations and human contact that we will achieve an area of peace and security.
This means that while I restrict the objectives of Great Europe, I do include internal security, since it is not possible these days to not have strong co-operation for the whole of Europe in this connection since criminals no longer stop at borders and we all suffer from the same evils (…)
2. A framework for fair, sustainable development. The second objective. As people who fear enlargement will turn into a watering down of Europe point out, a market area of 500 million inhabitants cannot work without the same rules for everybody. This market area clearly has huge potential but if we have progressed since 1985 it is not because we decided to create a huge market without frontiers but because the Single Act that made it possible set out a basic triptych which I feel is very important and which was not simple to impose - competition to stimulate, co-operation to reinforce and solidarity to unite.
Competition is the big market.
In terms of co-operation, we have a huge heritage but don't use it. Structural policies were based on partnership with the regions, which drew up development programmes and received European money. It has been a success. This spirit must be extended to other areas. Two examples: with greater social and economic co-operation, we would not be able to say, as I say today, that the Economic and Monetary Union only wears its monetary hat. Would people complain every day about seeing Europe lagging behind in terms of research if there were greater cooperation? Because we fail to cooperate effectively and intelligently but our countries are not big enough to everything alone.
As for solidarity, we would never have created the Single Market if the totals for structural policies hadn't increased from EUR 5 to EUR 33 billion in the space of fifteen years. But it is not simply a question of money. Local and regional politicians saw that Europe existed. They not only expected funds but proposed innovations and exchanged experiences. Europe gained in consistency and at the same time avoided the ravages of laisser-faire/laisser-passer.
3. The third element of Great Europe is a richer expression of our diversity. Nothing should be totally eliminated from the turbulent history, whether the schism of the Orient or the Ottoman and other conquests… Cooperating to make our cultures and creations bear fruit, Europe becoming richer and richer in terms of its specific nature and dialogue."
B. In search of an avant-garde (by "differentiation")
"Setting reasonable ambitions for Great Europe does not mean abandoning the ambition of a political Europe. But the only way to reconcile enlargement and deepening is by differentiation. What hides behind this word? Simply the fact that from the relaunch of the European project in 1985 onwards, we have made progress because some countries went further than others.
Three examples among many. Even before enlargement to Sweden, Austria and Finland, the European Community and the European Economic Area (which I had suggested founding) coexisted. It was only afterwards that these countries requested full membership of the EC. In 1991, hat would have happened to the Maastricht measures on Economic and Monetary Union if Denmark and the UK had had to agree? Or the social affairs protocol that the UK refused to apply? We made progress because these two countries benefited from opting out, in other words the option of not applying certain Treaty measures.
If we had had to wait for the fifteen Member States to agree before implementing Economic and Monetary Union, would the euro be circulating today in 12 Member States?
The lesson to be learnt from these examples - and there are other lessons - is that the door is never closed. Greece, for example, joined the other eleven countries in Economic and Monetary Union and at any time, the countries that hadn't committed themselves could join those that made the step earlier. (…)
The formula of strengthened co-operation is set out in the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties, but with restrictions and constraints such that so far nobody has ventured to invoke it. I hope the new Treaty will facilitate this procedure, thus demonstrating that we plan to take Europe forward and not to divide it up into several parallel or different experiments.
This is the precondition for avoiding watering down the European project. In this way we retain hope. By repairing for European Unity in Diversity of nations and cultures. By putting strength to work for peace and social progress by improving the organisation of the world."
C. For European champions of industry.
"When I was President of the Commission, while calling for competition rules to be respected, I had to fight against the excesses of those responsible for competition policy. I remember a few rather tough battles and while it is true that competition is designed to ensure prosperity, prosperity presupposes that in the world the way it is, European industrial complexes can compete with their competitors and provide the fruits of their dynamism and competitiveness.
I remember the tough battle over Air France in 1993-1994 (…). Many of my colleagues thought that providing 20 billion francs extra capital for Air France was unacceptable. After months of debate, the first social clashes and a change of management at Air France, I had to get angry to convince the Commission that if we refused this programme it meant the end of champions of European aviation and we would run counter to the spirit that had guided us to aid other airlines (…) Competition Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, was very severe and other colleagues were also very determined. I had to go as far as the incident in the sitting where I left the meeting, returning later and getting a favourable vote - 11 to 2 with one abstention. Today, thanks to this decision and quite remarkable management, Air France has become one of the world's leading airlines. What would Europe be without champions? (…) The very idea of industrial policy is still not accepted by some countries, which see it as state intervention or unfair state aid. But isn't industrial policy made through reasonable application of competition rules? It is a form of industrial policy. Europe has to have its champions!"