The air hostess question. Will the United Kingdom really join Europe one day? It's not me posing the question but European Commissioner Chris Patten, who posed it last Friday, 30 January, in his "Alcuin lecture" at Cambridge University. In English, his question includes a certain nuance that I was unable to translate; I'll publish the original version, which was also asked recently of an air hostess during a flight, "Do you think that Britain will ever actually join Europe?" His answer, "Will we ever "actually - I like that word - join Europe".
His "reading" is a deep and articulate attempt to respond and he asks, "Why is the question so difficult for us? What is the problem?" He gives us five reasons, which he subjects to an in depth analysis, which he does so brilliantly and without complacence. He also adds that there are other reasons too. I am not going to try and resume this dense and passionate paper, it's necessary to read it. what appears to be clear is that Mr Patten considers that there are no valid reasons for justifying the prevarication of his country of origin, the conditions are there for a complete and convincing British participation in all European activities (which is obviously not the case in his opinion, if it were, he wouldn't have asked the question). Mr Patten doesn't pull any punches as far as the Conservative Party is concerned (of which he has been its Chairman) and whose positions on Europe he considers as being "increasingly shrill, extreme and periodically ridiculous"). Tony Blair's intentions are treated in a much more positive light. Some of his speeches are defined as "rather good" but the results do not correspond to the intentions. Mr Patten considers that to begin with, the United Kingdom will not be considered as being wholly integrated into Europe as long as it is not part of the Euro, a participation that is essential not only as far as principles are concerned but also for continuing to attract foreign investment, notably form Japan.
Tony Blair believes in it, his colleagues much less. It is obviously the British themselves who have to rely to Mr Patten's question. I would simply like to underline that the impression that the United Kingdom is not really committed to European construction does not just continue on the continent but it is also shared by British citizens when they are well informed and directly involved in Community activities. I personally believe in the sincerity of Tony Blair's commitment, his desire to see his country at the centre of all Community activities, in an effort to possibly influence them from within and not any form of rejection tactics. The president of the WEO Armand De Decker recently declared to the French Senate (EU delegation and foreign affairs and defence committee), "We have to distinguish between the position of Tony Blair himself, whose wish to see the United Kingdom playing a more important role appears to me to be sincere, and that of the members of the politico-military establishment, much more Euro-sceptic…As long as Tony Blair is prime minister, progress is still possible…As for the Conservatives, they will have to decide one day between their fondness for Euro-scepticism and the inescapable path of European construction".
For the time being, I don't see any signs of change over the Channel. Certain quite recent declarations by Denis McShane, minister of European affairs(!) indicate a massive shift from the Community idea. In his most recent interview to a continental newspaper, of which I am aware, he took a line on three current issues. They are as follows:
a) New financial perspectives of the EU. He stated that when governments are obliged to reduce their spending, sometimes under threats made by the Commission, brandishing the Stability Pact, it is difficult to increase public transfers to Brussels. He added that 1% of GDP is 4% or 5% of tax revenue, which is already an enormous sum. He also averred that there was one absurdity that had to be overcome: the European budget dedicates 80% of spending to two areas: agriculture and underprivileged regions. He said that the Commission would have to show the courage to initiate organisational change.
b) Intergovernmental cooperation. He also stated that with two, three or four, countries could give Europe a boost without necessarily going through Brussels and that the Commission and the European Council were not the only ones to get Europe moving.
c) Adoption of the Constitution. Referring to the planned June elections he asked whether they should be transformed into a referendum on the Constitution, which would be an advantage to all opponents of the EU. He asserted that "the birth should not be induced", the Constitution had to take account of citizens and for just deadlines.
Undoing the two "common policies" of Europe, encouraging intergovernmentalism, holding back the Constitution. A really great European programme. (F.R.)