The step has been taken. Pascal Lamy has taken the step. He is holding a high-level conference next Wednesday 15 September on the concept of "collective preferences", opening the work himself. And so, a few weeks before he leaves his post, the debate on the new and highly controversial concept will change in nature, leaving behind it the stage of informal, even secret, documents and sententious discussions between universities, to take on an institutional character.
First of all, we need to understand what this is all about, because a certain confusion still reigns, which was caused by the terminology itself. The question is whether a State or group of States has the right to ban the importation of products or services which do not fulfil the "collective preferences" of its population. Trade freedom should take account of the national values of the importing country, which will be able to block imports which are incompatible with the "preferences" of its collectivity. This representation of it is most probably too crude; it gives the impression that the certainty of trade law would be called into question and that by applying the "collective preferences", WTO norms could be applied arbitrarily, thus making abuses possible. The reality is more shaded, and it is not by chance that Pascal Lamy never, not even in a working document, approved the draft produced at the end of last year by the "focus group" made up of European civil servants, plus independent experts and professors, and that he instead put together a more balanced document. I am not yet familiar with this new document (which will be presented at the Conference), and, obviously, I do not know what Mr Lamy will say next Wednesday. I have to be careful before I go around attributing any particular position to him. I can simply point out that the concept of "collective preferences" goes in the very direction Pascal Lamy has taken European trade policy, under which trade freedom must be underpinned by environmental, social and other rules ensuring that transactions are fair; in a speech to the European Parliament's Kangaroo Group on 27 January, he stated that trade rules "also reflect collective preferences, moral choices and the values of a society" (our translation throughout).
A university thesis. I take Mr Lamy's quotations from the thesis of Jacopo Scaramuzzi (Strasbourg's Robert Schuman University, Xavier Delcourt's journalism training centre): "De Seattle aux préférences collectives" ("From Seattle to Collective Preferences"), which is, as far as I am aware, the most complete and detailed source on this dossier. The "focus group" document refers to the hormone-treated beef case and geneticlaly modified organisms as examples of "society choices" which prevail in Europe. He acknowledges that the European position is hard to justify scientifically, but adds: "however, this makes it no less legitimate in that it reflects the collective preferences of the public, and is not controlled by protectionist ideas". Protecting the environment and even agriculture could be part of collective preferences: "conserving an agricultural sector is a social choice, born of a particular conception of rural life and rural development". The document recognises, however, that these arguments could "give rise to misunderstandings of different kinds": accusations of protectionism, the creation of arbitrary barriers to trade, euro-centricism in disguise. Jacopo Scaramuzzi also cites a number of reactions in the opposite direction. On 26 April, the president of Unice (the organisation which represents European industry) told Pascal Lamy of its disagreement with the trend towards considering that the political objectives of a country are not subject to international law, and rejected the idea that a country could bring in restrictions in return for a payment of compensation, because this would turn the WTO "into an organisation with two classes of member: those who can pay to break the rules and those which cannot [afford to]". The MEPs Mr Scaramuzzi interviewed differed greatly on the subject: Monica Frassoni (co-president of the Greens group) said that the concept of collective preferences "requires a compromise. I am in favour of a debate on the subject, this is better than nothing". Social Democrat Erika Mann disliked the concept, "because it is just a short step to a protectionist response". W.G. Van Velzen of the EPP group said "this is a legitimate question of consumer protection". British Liberal Nick Clegg said that he was in favour of a debate, even though he feels that it is "very difficult, and probably virtually impossible, to turn it into technical and legal applications".
As we can see, there are two contradictory elements at play: promoting greater national integration whilst preserving the legitimacy and diversity of society's choice. This is both the interest and the problems of the debate which is shortly to open. (F.R.)