Ahead of the reflection on the future of Europe, the problem is not that certain of the Member States differ on various aspects (these differences of opinion have always existed), but that there is a danger that they are symptoaticm of two irreconcilable visions of European construction. After the European Council of 22-23 June, which he chaired, broke down, Jean-Claude Juncker was concerned that the latter case was true. Addressing the European Parliament a few days later, Tony Blair changed the status quo considerably I denying that his objectives for Europe was nothing more than a free-trade zone, saying: "I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in its strong, human, social dimension. I could never accept its being nothing more than a market economy". This could translate as: differences in opinion at this moment in time, yes, two incompatible visions, no. The stock-taking exercise I carried out in this column last week provided little comfort for those choosing the optimistic interpretation; rather, I got the impression that the scale and scope of the "differences in opinion at this moment in time" are such that they point to two radically different visions.
Within the Kangaroo Group. A new element came into play whilst my comments were being published. In the middle of last week, when two out of my five commentaries have been published, the " Kangaroo Group" of the European Parliament invited me to take part in its lunch-debate on the crisis of Europe, where I summed up the results of the text analysis I had carried out. The reactions of the MEPs taking part in the debate were highly instructive for me, for two reasons:
a) generally speaking, my analysis was not seen as a neutral presentation of two concepts of Europe, but as a stance taken against the "British concept". For some aspects, such as defence of agriculture, this is doubtless the case (not defence of the CAP as such, but in favour of safeguarding agricultural activity in Europe), and European solidarity as expressed by a structural policy going beyond just paying out subsidies to the poorer countries. As for other aspects, I think that I was fairly frank in my criticism of some of France's actions and views (see this column on bulletin 9022), or those of other Member States. But the overall impression I left behind was the one that I indicated;
b) rather than asking questions, all the MEPs who spoke instead anticipated their visions ahead of the broad debate that Parliament is to open on the future of the Union. It is worth pointing out that Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber are the rapporteurs for this debate, and that the constitutional committee chaired by Jo Leinen will kick off talks on their draft report before the end of this month, ahead of the debate at the plenary session planned for next December or early 2006.
Pragmatism still alive. As the meetings of the "Kangaroo Group" chaired by Karl von Wogau were not open to the public, I would just like to make a few comments on the one held last week, without naming any names. Two MEPs, in practice, questioned the point and significance of holding a doctrinal, abstract debate on the concept of Europe. In their view, the reflection should concentrate instead on what is of interest to the citizen, on answers to the citizens' real problems, on the advantages the single market has brought them and will continue to bring them (for example, by liberalising services). The battle between two conflicting views of Europe would not help Europe to move forward in the slightest, we need to set ambitious targets and make the effort to attain them. This "British pragmatism" is, therefore, still alive, going so far as to challenge the very principle of this broad reflection on the future of Europe. Others, on the other hand, feel that this reflection is necessary not for reasons of doctrine, but in order to be able to answer the questions Europe is faced with today: its borders, its institutional mechanisms, the principle of "European preferences", political autonomy (and also, in my opinion, food autonomy), and so on. The Parliamentary debate will be enthralling.
I don't think I'm being indiscreet if I say that President von Wogau concluded by calling on the Parliament not to waste its efforts on the detail, but to concentrate on the broader objectives, the first of which, he feels, is the common foreign and security policy. He suggested a study into the "costs of non-Europe" in terms of security and defence, along the lines of the one carried out in the time of Delors, into the costs of the absence of a common market; his suggestion met with rapturous applause. Which brings us back to the basic question: will the security policy, and other essential achievements, be possible if we do not first define the nature and ambitions of Europe?
(F.R)