A premise: my analysis of statements and stances on the future of Europe (see this column in recent bulletins) in no way constitute an attack on the good faith of those who profess irreconcilable points of view. If Tony Blair acts in favour of a radical reduction of the agricultural expenditure of the Union, this is because he genuinely believes that this expenditure is injurious; those who put forward their reasons for or against the accession of Turkey to the EU are convinced that their respective diametrically-opposed arguments are correct; those who defend the Bolkestein directive on services feel that this is a positive thing for the European economy. And so on. Pouring cold water on other people's argument is not the best way of opening a reflection.
Now that we've got that straight, here are three conclusions I have drawn from my analyses of the texts.
1. The forthcoming reflection will not deliver results overnight, or during this half-year (UK Presidency), or during the next one. The differences of opinion on the objectives, ambitions, institutional mechanisms and boundaries of Europe are far too apparent for it be possible to end up with a uniform overall concept any time soon. When called upon to vote on the Duff-Voggenhuber report on "an assessment of the debate on the European Union", the Parliament itself will have to choose between an incisive text which can only be approved by majority and which many people will oppose, and a watered-down text, which does not really take a definite stance and which will be largely made up of soundbites.
2. The potential absence of clear choices on the fundamental aspect will prolong the doubts and misunderstandings, which are distorting the general public's perception of Europe, undermining the Community institutions and sometimes making the position of the national authorities embarrassing. The efficiency of European activities and the EU's weight in the world will be affected by this too. And yet, it is unlikely that the reflection, which has been put forward as a panacea, will allow things to go very much further.
3. Whatever happens, the EU will be forced to make a number of difficult and delicate decisions, because: a) it cannot avoid taking position on the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey; the deadline of 3 October is fast approaching; b) soon, it will have to take position on the limits it wishes to set on the opening up of its markets to agricultural imports from the whole world, a decision which may sound the death knell of European agriculture; c) it will not be able to avoid a compromise on the forthcoming financial perspectives, or it will end up stagnating and having to give up all hope of achieving the Lisbon strategy. These three decisions will determine the borders of Europe and whether or not an essential plank of our civilisation and our natural environment, the economic competitiveness and cohesion of Europe, lives or dies.
Returning to Jacques Delors. Obviously, I think that everything possible should be done to make sure that the heralded reflection allows the nature and ambitions of the EU to be clarified as much as possible, leaving open the possibility for certain initiatives which some of the Member States may choose not to take part in. I remain convinced that nothing has come along to replace Jacques Delors's ideas as a reference point to allow the increasing number of Member States (30 also) to live in harmony with the scope and ambition of its objectives. I took stock of his vision of Europe in July (see this column in our bulletins 8993, 8994 and 8995). Mr Delors himself then spoke on the radio, and here is our translation of what "Le Nouvel Observateur" had to say about him: "He did not hang back, he was acerbic yet cheerful, furious but not desperate (...). Rarely has Europe been spoken of with such faith and realism. In his view, post-national or roundly Federalist discourse has never made any sense. The nations are organic realities which need to be dealt with the right way (...). With the same verve, he laid into one-track neo-liberal thought, whereby everything would be better if workers were paid less and protected less. He scorned those socialist hierarchies who are so oddly proud of talking like central bankers (...). Between the European conviction of the person on the one hand, and his critical frankness on the other, we start to see a possible way of reconciling all the opposites".
In view of how hard it is to get hold of the tape ("Esprit public" programme broadcast on 24 July this year), I refer any of my readers who are interested to my clumsy and necessarily pale attempt to sum up Jacques Delors's vision in four pages of the above bulletins. As we well know, he is always a couple of years ahead of his time. Whilst we wait, over the next few days I would like to sum up the three aforementioned challenges which Europe will have to face up to whatever happens, without waiting for the broad reflection to lead to concrete results: the borders of Europe (due to the situation with Turkey), agriculture and the financial perspectives. (F.R.)