In this column previously (bulletin 8979), I laid out to the negative effects of and gaps in the vision of Europe as sketched out by the British Prime Minister in his speech to the European Parliament on 23 June. Today, I would like to underline a few particularly controversial aspects which are set to figure among the themes for reflection in the opening debate on the future of European integration.
Geographical borders. The Commission (in the person of its President), several governments and various members of the European Parliament, from all over the political spectrum, have included the EU's borders among the objects requiring clarification. Tony Blair has not, to the best of my knowledge, touched upon this. This is a highly delicate issue for public opinion; to understand this, all you need to do is say the word Turkey. It's no longer possible to talk about the future of Europe without having a clear idea of its territorial limits. Uncertainty on this subject played a considerable role in the criticisms and doubts expressed by the citizens (and we all know what a great champion Mr Blair is of their being heard). Sweeping this debate aside would justify the suspicion that anybody refusing to entertain it is in favour of a limitless expansion, and thus of a watered-down Europe, with neither personality nor ambitions.
Free trade. Tony Blair vigorously refuted the accusation that he was in favour of a purely trade-based integration: "I believe in Europe as a political project. I would never accept it as no more than a market economy". Here's what Jean-Claude Juncker had to say on this subject 24 hours earlier, addressing the same MEPs: "you can't create free trade areas overnight. The less we invest in political Europe, the more we are moving forward the concept of a free trade zone- without knowing it, without noticing it, but with an implacable logic. This concept will, therefore, look like a natural evolution of things, but it will cut us off for ever from the idea of a political Union". He then called upon the authorities in question to prove that this Union is what they want, too. Events will then clarify the intentions of all concerned.
Globalisation. Tony Blair's ideas on this are so clear that he doesn't even need to repeat them: he is in favour of totally opening Europe up to world competition. Answering a question in the press conference which followed his programme-speech, from a journalist asking him about the attitude the EU should adopt towards China, he said the Europeans must concentrate on the "added value" of their products, putting themselves in the vanguard from a technological point of view; and when, a bit later, the others have caught up, we'll have to step things up another notch, and so on, because "this is the reality of the world we live in today". Personally, this kind of prospect gives me goosebumps: seeing the world as a permanent battle always to produce the best, always more, with the bar getting infinitely higher, where anybody who is not up to scratch is out of the race... is this really the reality of the world we live in today? Of course, it's not my opinions on this that are eagerly anticipated, but the results of the debate ahead of us. The fact remains that elsewhere (in France in particular), a different view of globalisation is taking shape, which is based on a return to the "European preference". I will come back to this trend, because it is being voiced at the very highest levels. And I will just add that Mr Blair's ideas are obviously not applicable to the agricultural sector, where they would be not merely absurd, but frankly criminal. This is another point I would like to come back to in greater detail.
Common policies. Europe has two genuinely "Community" policies, in that the EU plays the lead role in both of them, institutionally and financially: the Common agricultural policy (CAP) and the cohesion policy. We are only too aware of what Tony Blair thinks of the former. The British position on the latter may have been somewhat lost from mind: it is that the common policy should be transformed into a cheque made out to the least-favoured Member States, whilst the others would take charge of their regions lagging behind themselves, leaving the community institutions with no part to play. The gradual demolition of these two policies would be achieved via the budgetary route, by radically reducing the credit available to them. Mr Blair himself referred to the Sapir draft, which already recommended a budgetary revolution to this end. I would like to remind my readers that the previous Commission debated the Sapir draft thoroughly (as it was forwarded to it, by request of president Prodi), and that Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner at the time, summed up the results of it thus: "they wanted to write off the two great policies of solidarity as old hat. After a year, we reached the conclusion that these policies were useful and could be updated and that they have a contribution to make to Europe's competitiveness". The debate, once again, is open.
(F.R.)