Jacques Delors confirmed his choice on the two main institutional options for the European Union. The two major points were outlined on 22 March to the Socialist Group at the European Parliament and are those he has always defended: a federation of nation states and differentiation.
Reasons behind the choice. As for the reasons behind the choice of the first he explained, “this is about affirming that nations still have a future and that the federal mode is the best, most efficient, most transparent and most democratic in reaching national decisions. This is where my difference lies with the partisans of the European federalist doctrine who have always criticised me for being too pragmatic in my reflection and my action”.
On the subject of differentiation, it is the possibility of making certain progress in European construction without all the countries of the EU. He explained that, “I know that the new Member States are currently against differentiation. I have spoken to them about it amicably and I believe that Ms Merkel is also in favour of it. But in the end, if there had not been any differentiation, how would we have succeeded with the transition periods when Spain and Portugal joined? What would the Schengen Agreement have become? Where would the Euro be? If we had had to wait for the 15 to agree, we would not have set up the Economic and Monetary Union! Differentiation is not something new we're inventing due to enlarged European construction. It has played its role, it has allowed for a certain dynamism to be maintained. Of course, new differentiations will have to respect all the rules of the game and the pact that unites the 25, and the 27 Member States of tomorrow. This is not about using the pretext of differentiation to begin to undo what already exists. But the European Parliament and Commission are there, if needed, for examining problems linked to differentiation, as for example, the possible creation of reinforced cooperations”.
Respecting the decisions in favour. In connection with the “reflection period”, Jacques Delors insisted on declaration No. 30 annexed to the Constitutional Treaty, by which the inter-governmental conference “notes that if, at the end of the two year deadline after the signing of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, the four fifths of Member States which have ratified the said Treaty but one or several Member States have had difficulties reaching the said ratification, the European Council will tackle the question”. The above mentioned deadline expires on 29 October 2006 and Mr Delors explained that “if the European Council does not deal with the question at the right time, this will be totally disrespectful of the countries that have ratified the Treaty and is unacceptable. Trust is also respecting those who have made different decisions”.
On other issues, Jacques Delors did not this time take a position on certain aspects of what is often the subject of discussions at the present moment, such as on what road to follow, the possibility of a lighter constitution Treaty, future enlargements of the Union. But even last year during an event organised by the European Movement he declared, “I would have preferred that part III of the Constitutional Treaty was not included, although they leave the possibility of amending it by a super-qualified majority and not by unanimity”. But this part III is not more liberal than socialist. Each majority gives it its content. That's the law of democracy”. He then explained that he was against calling it, the European Constitution. National identities have to be safeguarded, it is the countries that have to have their Constitution. At a European level he prefers the notion of a Constitutional Treaty.
We will have noticed that in his speech to Socialist Parliamentarians that Jacques Delors avoided lengthy theoretical and doctrinaire meanderings. He preferred to speak openly about concrete issues linked to political and operational progress in Europe and did not hesitate when it came to tackling sensitive and controversial cases, such as tax competition and institutional reinforcement in the Euro zone (see this section in yesterday's bulletin). Jacques Delors is not the person you're looking for if you want the language of consensus. Neither is he someone who tries to please everyone. He prefers to be clear and incisive at the risk of clashing with certain set ideas. Faced with certain abstract dissertations, he reminded me of what Francesco Berni wrote on the sonnets of Michelangelo: “Ei dice cose, e noi diciam parole” (he says things and we say words).
(F.R.)