By the end of the week, we will know what the Heads of State and Government think of Europe's current crisis (which isn't the first, and won't be the last) and the initiatives to be taken. But the European Council won't go beyond a "joint declaration" and a few general or procedural guidelines. Opinions on continuing the ratification processes, the option of pre-empting a few elements of the constitutional treaty, and others, are so far apart that one idea taking shape is to precede any strategy with a reflection between people... other than the Heads of Government. Anyone who knows Europe, its history, its significance, should throw their ideas into the ring before the princes who govern us take decisions.
In Alain Lamassoure's "restart procedure", the first step is a meeting of the group of the "wise". Other suggestions or plans all contain the same element: getting people together who have no decision-making powers or any ambitions to acquire any (so that they have no "career plan" to cloud their judgment), but who know enough about Europe, sometimes in their former protagonist capacity, to point out the right direction and, above all, be able to advise against wrong moves. As it happens, many people who fit this bill have already spoken. Certainly, the operational summary of their positions will require a meeting between them. So why not start by listening to them?
Here's a first step for such an exercise, comparing three different positions.
Etienne Davignon's positive thinking. From the word go, two or three years ago, he advised against the use of the referendum as an instrument to ratify a Constitution, quoting the 30% or so who take position not on the question put to them, but on the person asking it. This is more than enough to distort a result. Now he says that he is "sad and angry", but calls for the work to go on. How? Via explanation. First of all, about the euro, which has protected Europe from the monetary jolts which would have spelt big trouble for several national currencies, and which gave the countries of the EU the concrete option to speak out even when they didn't agree with each other (over Iraq, for instance). Then, on enlargement to countries of Central and Eastern Europe: "their growth tomorrow is our asset. If they were not members, would we be able to avoid delocalisations out of Europe?". Thirdly, on the way the Union works. The current image of "Brussels" as a symbol of all the institutions is wrong and "damaging". Without Europe, there would be no effective remedy to growth deficits; solidarity creates wealth; only joint actions will overcome the threats which are of concern to the citizen. And what if this initiaive to explain such things was insufficient, here or there? We should "not be afraid to say that if all 25 cannot go forward, we will go forward with those which continue to want a genuine Europe".
Pascal Lamy: putting the Community acquis back on the drawing board. Pascal Lamy (whose responsibilities now lie at world level, rather than within the European institutions) holds a more radical view. What he has thrown into the debate is "a vision of European identity in a world which is rapidly becoming globalised. This forces us to look again at the outlines of a European project set up 50 years ago. This is the well-known Community acquis, to be replaced by the somewhat infamous part III of the draft constitutional treaty. It is this that we need to revisit, rediscuss, re-write, if we want to give the building solid foundations". Mr Lamy says that he is "convinced that it's the European compromise which no longer fits in these texts", and concludes: "So there is no doubt in my mind that we need to take the risk of putting this compromise back on the drawing board".
Philippe Herzog's formula. He's no longer a member of the European Parliament; he now fights his battles as president of the association " Confrontations Europe". Mr Herzog has carried out a detailed analysis of the French vote. He speaks out against "years of neglecting the duty to inform, consult and involve the French citizens in European choices and actions", but adds that "the irony is that it was the democratic efforts of the Convention and the draft Constitution which were rejected. The result of the French vote is that the political decision-makers are still there, but political Europe has fallen victim". Political union and concrete solidarity is precisely what Europe needs, and this was precisely "what was rejected, but consolidating the euro zone and building a broader political roof over our heads is the only way to bring people together rather than to divide them". Philippe Herzog feels that the way forward is clear: we must "breathe new life into the dynamics of political union". (F.R.)