After rather a long silence, Jacques Delors gave a speech last week. It was a formal occasion: the Conference of European Statisticians. However, although he recognised the importance of statistics as the basis for the judicious conduct of European affairs, it was not statistics he talked about. He took the opportunity to sketch out an overview of the situation of the EU. And he did so in his own inimitable way: a vision, the clarity, and this open-mindedness, which derives both from his profound nature and his total independence from the institutions, political parties and clans of various types. Jacques Delors speaks, and a certain idea of Europe is expressed.
Objectives must be "relevant and realistic". Mr Delors answered two questions which are fundamental to the future of European integration. The first is one he has been raising persistently since he chaired the Commission, without ever the princes governing us judging it apposite to try to give him an answer. So here goes: "Will the Greater Europe of 25, and tomorrow of over 30, mutate away from the Community, which has already evolved much in 50 years?". Jacques Delors points out that since the events of 1989, he had marked his "enthusiastic support" to eastern enlargement, and cannot "be accused, along with others, of looking for arguments to delay, or prevent, all Europeans from coming together". But once enlargement was decided on in principle, he defined the "relevant and realistic" ambitions for the Greater Europe: 1) a "space for peace and mutual understanding"; 2) the implementation of a cohesion and development policy "sustainable, and showing solidarity"; 3) the respect for the diversity of cultures, "which is our Continent's wealth".
The objection to this vision was always the same: by leaving the economic and monetary union, and the foreign and defence policy sidelined from objectives which are common to all, were we not creating a "two-speed Europe", with two categories of Member State?
Jacques Delors answers by stressing that the objectives he indicates for the Greater Europe are fundamental and historical. The first, peace and stability, is the basis for everything: "Considering past difficulties, thinking of the future integration of the Balkans, this is an essential mission which demands our vigilance and care".
Extending what European integration has achieved. As for the second objective, this shows all the significance and wealth, because it aims at "extending what European integration has achieved". Not only the free movement of persons, goods and services, but also economic and social cohesion (including regional policy), common efforts for research and innovation and "the reasonable pursuit of the social dimension: adoption of minimum standards in working conditions and pay, incentivising negotiations between employers and employees, development of changes, especially for students (Erasmus programme)". Mr Delors added with force: "if some of these programmes had to be abandoned, then this would not be the same European project, in my view". Limiting EU resources to 1% of Union GDP would mean abandoning the Union's economic and social project: "the Union's budget cannot be reduced to some kind of compensation chamber between the rich countries and the less rich ones".
Against global uniformisation. The third objective implies "defending and illustrating our heritage and talents in the face of the risk of the uniformising effects of globalisation, and also stimulating cultural creation in all fields, making each other richer with our differences".
Taking note of divergences. Why do the Economic and Monetary Union and the common foreign and defence policy not feature among the specific objectives of Greater Europe? Here is Jacques Delors's answer: "I take note of our divergences, and the different ways in which we have developed. The reinforced co-operation provided for by the Treaty allows us to make progress in these areas with a group of countries, but leaving the door open to all others". He points out that "this is how European integration has been able to move forward", quoting the opting-out of the past and the case of the single currency, whilst reaffirming the golden rule: we cannot force a Member State to accept a step forward which it does not want, but this Member State cannot stop its partners from taking it.
The second question Jacques Delors answered is related to what's going on in the Community and certain ongoing debates: "how to we overcome the contradictions which appear between the various conceptions of Europe in the economic and social field?". I will summarise his answer tomorrow. (F.R.)