"Stimulating pessimism". Although claiming to be somewhat pessimistic, disappointed and disenchanted by the current situation in Europe, he still cannot help his speeches being, as always, stimulating for those who hear them. I am speaking of Jacques Delors. He spent three days in Brussels, spoke on radio and television, met Belgian journalists, and presented his "Mémoires" in a bookshop and at the "Spaak Foundation". He did not conceal the fact that he was perplexed and spared no criticism for a number of actors on the Community scene. But, just listening to him, one cannot fail to feel his passion for the construction of a united Europe. This message was put across without the need for rhetoric or high-flown sentiments but just by the force of his conviction and the sincerity of his commitment. He often spoke of failings, cowardliness and pettiness, but the result was that his listeners received a blast of positive energy and were caught up in the renewed wish to give fresh enthusiasm and impetus to the European cause. The ovation he received after his speech at the Palais des Académies in Brussels bore witness to this.
Three priorities of the moment. During the ceremony at the Spaak Foundation, Jacques Delors was invited by Christine Ockrent to say a few words about what he feels Europe most urgently needs at the present time. He replied: 1) vision; 2) confirmation of the Community method; 3) "differentiation", which must become a term that is understood by all and accepted by all. Each of these three priorities deserves brief comment.
Vision must allow one to understand whether the citizens and political decision-makers still aim to build a united Europe with a role in the world, or if some of them prefer just a free-trade area for developing trade. If one does not look a little further than the immediate advantages and national interests of the day, one cannot have a view of the future. The "cult of what is immediate" prevents not only memories of the past (the history of our nations dating back to one hundred and sometimes one thousand years, but also the history of European construction) but also any vision of the future. People must be given "the feeling of individual responsibility" and at the same time "the collective reflex, with the feeling of belonging to a whole". Jacques Delors does not have the impression that the Twenty-Five all have the same concept of the Europe being built.
More than ever indispensable. Confirmation of the Community method is above all restoring confidence, respect and dialogue between institutions, by putting an end to "looking daggers and striking poses", which only cause annoyance and cancel out mutual understanding (see this column of 20 January). The Commission must endeavour to be "at the service of the governments and of Europe", but it must also receive "the respect due to it and to its President". Things must be calmed down and one must regain the spirit that had once animated the Convention. The Convention did good work (with a special mention for national MPs): "one could breathe more easily than at an IGC. It had opened the windows on Europe". In a 25-member Europe, the Community method is, according to Jacques Delors, more than ever indispensable. One must return to the operating rules set out in the texts. The innovations that one hears so much about - such as the stable president of the European Council or the "Foreign Minister", do not constitute what is essential. If one changes the name of the High Representative for CFSP, it is not that which will change the substance. The Community method is first of all the role of the Commission and the possibility of majority decisions in Council, plus codecision for Parliament.
Understood by all and accepted by all. Differentiation means noting the fact that the next stages in the construction of Europe cannot be covered by all at the same time - it is quite unthinkable. One cannot wait for unanimity before taking a move. With such a rule, we would not even have single currency today. The possibility of certain achievements between Member States that so wish, in the context of the Union, in respect of the rules and leaving the door open for the others, that is what differentiation is - and it has always existed. But, according to Jacques Delors, at the moment "minds are fixed. Nothing is happening. I say differentiation and in Poland and the Czech Republic one replies that they don't want a two-speed Europe". Differentiation must become a term that is understood and accepted by all. To reject it would mean encouraging achievements outside the Community framework - and the Union would become a vast, soulless free-trade area, which would crumble away as it would not be able to manage essential issues such as, for example, immigration or the right to asylum. But the so-called "large" countries which act for themselves, must not have any illusions. They will not keep their influence in the world. If they cannot speak on behalf of Europe as a whole, they too will be swept away, and they will not weigh any heavier than the United States, China or the other great world entities even economic prosperity and welfare would, in the long run, be compromised (see below for the passages relating to the economic and monetary Union).
So, what should be done? Act in three directions: a) the 25-member Europe (or even larger soon) should manage the European area in a coherent and complete way, with the essential solidarity that it takes and with common policies, including those relating to justice and home affairs ("There's good in this, in the field of JHA"); b) in parallel, the "EMU, which is still limping along, must be a success"; and c) the road to differentiation must be opened to allow progressive development of joint action in the field of foreign policy (joint actions, not a common policy which is not yet within reach) and defence policy. With these three elements - effective management of common area, completed and strengthened economic and monetary Union, differentiation admitted - and by remaining faithful to the Community method, "we can start again" as, for Europe, "nothing is ever acquired but neither is anything ever lost".
If Europe does not succeed EMU, what point is there in other projects? In several of his speeches, Jacques Delors mainly insisted on the balance and effectiveness of economic and monetary Union. It is essential to have the "economic pillar" alongside the monetary pillar: "without this, nothing is serious". He gently mocked "French nominalism, which is sometimes incredible". France, he said, has managed to have the word "growth" added to the Stability Pact, and was satisfied. From 1997, Jacques Delors had proposed that there should be added to the Stability Pact a "Pact for coordination of economic policies" which would have allowed a coordinated economic and social policy to be developed, increasing the possibilities of growth and balanced development, which creates jobs. He told "Libre Belgique": "I have sent this project to several officials, but I have not yet received an answer. That's where we have got to. We must reform and successfully bring about the EMU, but there is the feeling that there is no resolve to share the exercise of sovereignty in the field of economic and social policy. This is linked to the attitude adopted by most Economy and Finance Ministers". Speaking before the Spaak Foundation, during the ceremony organised by Etienne Davignon and Antoinette Spaak, he said: "If the EMU is not a success, what point is there in other projects? Without economic coordination, even the euro could have difficulties. We must pay tribute to the euro. What would have happened if it hadn't been there, given the budgetary deficits and the financial crises in the world? Some currencies of Member States would have been attacked, and we would even have had monetary storms in the EU itself. With the euro, things have remained quiet. The euro protects us, but it does not give dynamism. We need economic governance founded on coordination. This would bring prosperous and dynamic periods back to Europe".
A non-exhaustive choice. During his days in Brussels, Jacques Delors touched on several other issues also, either in his speeches or in answer to questions put to him. Here is just a sample:
- The role of the European Commission. "The Commission is at the service of governments and at the service of the European idea. The more it helps governments find solutions, the more credit it has and the more proposals it can make. But when one sees the way Mr Prodi is treated by some governments, it is unacceptable! (…) We now need people who can calm the situation down, who can stop the itching. We must return to a climate of confidence, at least a climate of non-belligerence between Europeans. It is up to the Commission and the Council President to play their part. In my time, it was done together". (An extract from the interview in "Le Soir" in Brussels).
- The Stability Pact and Court of Justice. Mr Delors had already expressed his disagreement with the Commission's decision to tackle the Ecofin Council at the Court of Justice for not having complied with the procedures of the Stability Pact (see our bulletin of 15 January, page 9). He nonetheless specified that he is not criticising the Commission. He is simply saying that, if he were in its shoes, he would not have taken this initiative as "from the point of view of European pedagogy, it is worthless", with procedural questions being incomprehensible for people (answer to a question at the "Chapitre Douze" bookshop).
-Very great disappointment as Commission President. He cited the rejection of the White Paper on "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment" by Finance Ministers. He said "I was extremely disappointed, appalled by their attitude toward the White Paper, whereas the Heads of State and Government had given their approval". (Extract from the interview with Sabine Verhest from "La Libre Belgique").
- What is at stake. "Europe has an interest in understanding that it must go beyond its divisions. This is a question of survival or decline. European politicians do not seem to be aware of this and react in a way that is insouciant compared to the reality of a cruel world in which, if we are not careful, we shall be marginalised. What will our children say of us?" (Extract from the talk with "Le Soir" and answers to the "Chapitre Douze" bookshop).
(F.R.)