Mr de Villepin's five plans. Last July, the French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, published France's starting position ahead of the reflection on the future of Europe, in six newspapers in six different Member States (Le Monde, Financial Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, La Stampa, El Pais and Le Soir). The title alone may have seemed somewhat inappropriate in the view of some of the capitals: "A New Political Europe". But it's not what on the surface that matters. The important thing is that Mr de Villepin laid down five "plans" for his new Europe, two of which coincided, in theory, with the British vision summarised in this column yesterday (innovation and research policy, common security policy), the third is somewhat rhetorical in nature (concretisation of European democracy by dint of a "European civil service"), and two are so far away from London's view of things that they could be seen as provocation: a) economic governance of the euro zone (of which, obviously, the United Kingdom would remain on the sidelines); b) "reinforced" Common agricultural policy (whilst continuing to make changes to it).
Against "caricatures". A few days earlier, the new Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste Blazy, had been less diagrammatical on the programmes (the five "plans"), but more explicit, even argumentative, on the visions behind them. France, he wrote, did not agree that there was a row between the ancient and modern within the EU (our translation): "contrary to certain caricatures, the gulf is not between those who defend necessarily retrograde common policies on the one hand and the self-proclaimed proponents of innovation and dynamism on the other". The question to be debated is the "integration model (...), the political project which we want to give to Europe". The Minister added that "despite what may have been said, the financial perspectives are part of the debate on political Europe", pointing out that the package put forward by the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council "included, in its final version, an increase of over 30% on expenditure for research and future-orientated policies, whilst the Common agriculture policy saw its share fall by a total of one third, compared to more than half less than 10 years ago" (in other words, innovation and dynamism had, in his view, been alive and kicking in the very "Juncker compromise" which Tony Blair rejected). France is prepared to carry out an "active reflection" on the best way to move Europe forward towards greater growth and productivity, but "this active reflection should not involve unravelling the community acquis or calling 50 years of European construction into question". In particular, the debate on the CAP should not be limited solely to the issue of aid to farmers; it should also focus on "food self-sufficiency, managing the European territory, food safety". The essential objectives of the French vision are as follows: "putting flesh on the bones of the economic governance which is coming into place across the Eurogroup (...), setting up a well-managed and well-thought out immigration regime (...), creating a diplomacy and a defence allowing Europe to keep its place in the world and speak with one clear and autonomous voice". MrDouste Blazy concluded: "in order to do all of this, we hope to act collectively, and this is what should be done. But we should not hesitate, if it proves necessary, to allow some to act, was waiting for the others to join in".
A lofty, intergovernmental France. The French stances should be compared with those of Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, which I summed up yesterday, to assess the differences. From a Community point of view, Mr de Villepin's text raises a certain amount of confusion. It is blissfully ignorant of the fact that many of the ambitions it contains can be found in the draft Constitution, and that it was France which rejected it. Furthermore, intergovernmental co-operation appears in many places as the basis for the planned initiatives in mechanisms, in preference to the Community method. In the "innovation and research policy" plank, this tendency almost becomes a caricature of itself: "I propose", Mr de Villepin wrote, " that one or two European study and technology institutes be created in France. These institutes would bring together the best international researchers and scientists, research laboratories, and innovative enterprise under one roof. They will be open to all the European States wishing to be part of them". It's hard to see the correlation between this lofty presentation and a spirit of common decisions and achievements. And Paris seems to have forgotten the extent to which France itself is responsible for any deviations from the CAP and for any reluctance or downright hostility the CAP has ever met with.
To complete the picture, I would like to discuss a few other national positions tomorrow.
(F.R.)