Joschka Fischer recants. Fashions change. The two-speed Europe, the avant-guard and pioneer groups are losing ground to the idea of the compact Europe of 25. Certainly, positions in this sense are nothing new; the novelty and at present even the well-known figures who supported the opposing thesis are changing their minds (Joschka Fisher) or relaxing their previous position (Jacques Chirac). The speech by the German foreign affairs minister is a real recantation. He recognised that he would no longer be coming out with his famous speech of 2000 at Humboldt University because the situation had changed and Europe needed the "continental dimension" faced with the giants of the USA, Russia, China and India. Even the accession of Turkey has to be, in his opinion, seen in this perspective: all Europeans together to get their weight felt in the world.
An imaginary directoire. This evolution has a positive aspect: it should get rid of for ever the fear of a "directoire". We have spoken too much about this danger, which in my opinion is not real. The last summit Germany/France/United Kingdom, focused on economic issues, filled up the newspapers, ended up as a text but which is not very different from the alternative and was adopted a few days later by six other Member States, including Italy, Spain and Poland. Some qualification is needed, the two texts maintain the orientations and recommendations already formulated in the mass of documents the Commission prepared for the next "Spring summit". On the radio, Jean-Claude Juncker gave a very fine welcome to meetings incorporating the three members, "I thinks it's love of one's neighbour that brought Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder together because they saw that not much love had been lost and that our meetings in Brussels had been interrupted to enable them to get along…That they find an agreement beforehand, which would push Europe forward with more elegance". His conclusion (a written one) was clear, "I don't believe in the danger of a directoire; to lead Europe we have to agree on the main issues…"
Main thrust hasn't changed. Let's welcome, then, the declarations of Joschka Fischer, Jacques Chirac and other well known figures of the same mould, if they are able to calm fears and reassure both the small countries, new Member States and public opinion. But these declaratiosn don't change the main thrust. Mr Fischer's vision of Europe, with as much weight as the USA and other countries/continent cities, presupposes that the EU is just as compact, which is far from being the case, in my opinion. If some Member States are unable to or do not want to orientate towards political unity and the Europe of defence and reject the principle of majority decision making, it's their choice. Otherwise we accept that certain essential aims will not be accomplished in a Europe of 25 (or of 27, 30 or more) or everything has just been rhetoric. In his speech in Budapest, president Chirac carefully explained that Europe had to go forward as 25 but "by respecting the rhythm of each country: some countries will want to go faster and further, let them do this. Others will be more hesitant: leave them the time to adapt" in the knowledge that the way ahead "must remain open, concerted and progressive", three adjectives carefully chosen. The article by the Portuguese prime minister José Manuel Durao Barroso, quoted in our bulletin of 3 March (p 6) says the same thing: with 25 or more countries, "going further can no longer be subject the condition of the lowest common denominator. Flexibility formulas will have to be found to enable those who want to, go forward. But this should not end up with exclusive circles or situations where it is just a few ,who on their own, define the way ahead on issues of common concern. Each new advance will have to be built on the basis of a real spirit of trust and which is open to all who want to take part in further initiatives".
To be clear, it is the directoire that's been condemned to death and not "differentiation" in the way that Jacques Delors introduced the term to the debate (no-one's found a better word so far). The Spinelli Group paper (see this section 2 March) has also set itself the objective of burying the directoires, avant-garde and pioneer groups but it constitutes the example of the most structured kind of differentiation that I have ever known: the "Euro Group" would have its economic governance procedures, its tax harmonisation, its budget, its ministerial councils and even its summits! Conclusion: the revisions bury the "directoires" and that's all for the better but more integration is called for if the objective indicated by Joschka Fischer is to "grow in close proximity together to get our weight felt". And if we don't agree with "more integration" (which is indeed currently the case) Member States that are prepared to act have to get moving. It's up to the others to follow.
(F.R.)