A difficult takeoff. It has taken off at last, at official and institutional level, the reflection on the future of Europe. The Heads of State and Government will discuss the "economic and social model" aspect of it at the end of October, amid much confusion and reluctance. The European Parliament has held an initial exchange of views within its constitutional committee, followed by a press conference of the rapporteurs. The President of the Commission held a significant press conference on Wednesday. Things are moving, and I'll come back to this soon. At the same time, the parallel debate within civil society is getting started, which is important because the reflection must not be an internal issue to the institutions of the EU; the populations must take an active part in it, via political parties, representative movements and associations.
Obviously, it is impossible to summarise all the debates. I have personally followed two which took place in Brussels. The first was organised by "Confrontations Europe", an association which is open to everybody, regardless of their political leanings, and to representatives of economic, social and university circles. I took stock of the speeches made by Mario Monti and Philippe Herzog on one aspect, that of the "Community preference". The second meeting, which was held by the "Mouvement européen Belgique" and by the Belgian daily newspaper " Le Soir", allowed the 500 readers of this journal to put questions to two proponents of the "yes" to the European Constitution (Jean-Luc Dehaene and Bronislaw Geremek, former prime minister of Belgian and former Foreign Minister of Poland respectively, both of whom are currently members of the European Parliament) and two supporters of the no, Laurent Fabius, former French prime minister, and Kartika Liotard, who was elected to the European Parliament in the Netherlands.
Bronislaw Geremek in the starring role. On the clapometre, the evening's clear winner was Mr Geremek, who brought some genuine European spirit into the proceedings. In his opinion, the failure of the constitutional referendum in two Member States constituted a "failure of the European idea". The "old" Member States of the EU "are tired", and the new ones bring them hope. In Poland, joining the European Union was success. In the world of agriculture, after initial fears and hesitation, the percentage of those in favour of accession rose from 20% to 65%. The farmers felt threatened, not only in their own interests, but also in their very identity, and they wondered whether their days were numbered. Even though it is still only partial, their involvement in the common agricultural policy (CAP) has given them confidence. But for their part, the "old" Member States must not forget that they are the "conquerors of the second half of the last century", and European construction has been the great adventure in this. They must get their impetus back and not fear further enlargement, which is a positive thing for Europe and for all of its citizens. When asked about the business of the "Polish plumber" who apparently so influenced the "no" in France, Mr Geremek answered with further irony: there are 176 Polish plumbers in France, and Poland is quite happy to take them back, because it's starting to need them. But we mustn't forget that the first "Polish plumber" in France was called Eve Curie, and that she won her host country two Nobel prizes..
Laurent Fabius on the defensive. Mr Fabius concentrated mainly on challenging the idea that the French "no" meant a rejection of Europe: the French are pro-European, and its personal political action proves that it has always worked in favour of European construction. The rejection referred not to the first part of the Constitution (with its general principles and its institutional reforms), nor the second part (Charter of Fundamental Rights), but the third, which lays down common policies. To this, Jean-Luc Dehaene replied that the result of the rejection is that the first and second parts are now blocked (even though they made a great contribution), and that the third remains, because it sums up the previous treaties! Ms Liotard borrowed the worst soundbites of the "no" campaign, with an alleged link between the Constitution and the Bolkestein directive. Mr Dehaene simply pointed out that this directive had been proposed before the text of the Constitution even existed and that the European Parliament was in the process of revising it radically. With the Constitution, this would have been far easier, because the powers of the European Parliament would have been reinforced, and the right of the States to pay for "services of general interest" would have been formally recognised.
The speeches made from the floor by members of the public confirmed the existence of great confusion as to what comes under national and what under European jurisdiction, in that they blamed t Europe for negative developments in terms of the defence of languages and national cultures, or of social aid. However, it is the result of the national elections which determine the stance taken by the States in these areas. Europe only lays down principles, all of which fully respect all cultures and social rights.
Today, we have talked more about yesterday's debate on the Constitution than the future.
(F.R.)