Mr Juncker and the Commission to work together. The second question Jacques Delors answered in his speech in Paris last week (see this column yesterday for the first) concerns the contradictions between the various conceptions of Europe in the economic and social fields. This is a topical issue, because it covers certain stances and ongoing debates on, for instance, company delocalisations, tax harmonisation, relaunching the Lisbon process and, to a certain extent, debates on the Constitution for Europe.
Mr Delors spoke firstly of the well-known imbalance between the monetary and economic planks of the EMU (economic and monetary union), which has a bearing on how the Stability Pact and economic governance of the Union function. A balance between the two pillars of the EMU had been recommended in its time by the committee of experts (chaired by Jacques Delors himself), created by the Summit to prepare the single currency, and provided for in principle by the Treaty of Maastricht. In fact, although the monetary pillar is alive and well, the economic pillar "is non-existent: it is not enough for us all (including non-members of the EMU) to debate the broad economic guidelines. We must achieve genuine co-operation for macro-economic policies in the EMU, and thus obtain a useful dialogue between the economic and monetary sides of things". Mr Delors says that he is "very happy" about Jean-Claude Juncker's appointment as president of Eurogroup, hoping that "he will work very closely with the Commission". This is entirely necessary, as relations between the countries of the euro zone and the Commission are a very delicate part of the whole. In particular, Jacques Delors states that for several years now, in the EMU, "the hypothesis of collective sovereignty opposes that of competitive federalism". If I have rightly understood, in the former the EMU States define their policies together, in the second they compete with each other using their policies, especially those relating to taxation.
Not turning their backs on the spirit of Europe. Jacques Delors says we are "facing a confrontation which is fundamental for the future of Europe". He clarifies: "Let us rightly understand each other. Some things will remain within the competency of the nation-States, this is the application of the principle of subsidiarity. Some reforms, adaptations, must be carried out by the national governments, each taking account of national characteristics. Realism commands this, because some problems are national in origin. There would be no point in transferring these to European level. This may be apt for a speech, but it would not be a solution, the miracle answer to the heterogeneity of national solutions".
Having cleared this up, the speaker moves on to the fundamental assertion: "we would be turning our backs on the spirit and achievements of European integration if we accepted competition between the States as a basic principle, to add to competition between economic actors. If this view won the day, the whole system's coherence would be called into question. This would endlessly encourage tax and social dumping. The EMU would enter a deep political crisis, not forgetting the risks of social destabilisation".
Co-ordination is not always enough. The second point he made was on the Lisbon process, which, in his view, "has suffered from too many objectives and insufficient co-operation. A flexible method was recommended: the open method of co-ordination. It did not give the hoped-for results. We must take note of this". Certainly, the Member States must continue to talk about their experiences, and new ideas which have worked, because "everyone can benefit from this", and it is clear that "the lion's share of efforts to adapt must be made at national level; the European Union cannot make up for the failures and delays of the Member States". But in fields where added value can be brought by co-operation at European level, "we must decide, and dedicate the necessary resources". Mr Delors quoted the fields: "I am thinking mostly of transport networks, new communication technologies, research, and economic and social actions to reconcile flexibility and security, especially via life long learning, without forgetting the pillar of our marriage contract which is economic and social cohesion".
As we can see, Jacques Delors is pleading neither for pure liberalism nor its converse, and he fully recognises subsidiarity and national competency. He pleads "for a compromise, still unstable, based on the consolidation of achievements and the reinforcement of co-operation", taking the view that "the European model is, at base, a balance between the society and the individual, between the State and decentralised authorities, between the market game and the necessary rules and regulations".
(F.R.)