Etienne Davignon entered the debate on Europe this week during a “mardi d'EurIFRI” lunchtime debate (organised by the European branch of the IFRI Institute, headed by Pierre Defraigne). His situation is an enviable one: he has an incomparable experience of European affairs (direct collaborator of Paul-Henri Spaak, author of the famous book on European political cooperation and Vice-President of the European Commission, among other things), but remains independent of any party or clan connection.
Europe is not deadlocked. Viscount Davignon spoke of the European crisis in his usual forthright and candid manner. He is aware that there is a crisis and acknowledges that it is serious but he reasons in a positive way. This does not mean he is completely optimistic but rather that he does not over-dramatise the situation. He is also highly indignant about the tendency to simply show resignation. There is nothing totally new in what has happened - have we forgotten that, at one time, one of the founding Member States was no longer taking part in Community activity? Today, it is the way difficulties and differences are presented that is cause for despondency. Is Europe deadlocked? It is fashionable to say and write so but it is off beam. Let us see what the viscount has to say: “The EU's inability to show its results to best advantage drives me mad! We don't mention them. And as soon as an agreement or compromise is reached, its scope and significance is played down. It is grotesque. Everything points to the fact that Europe is not paralysed, but each time we move forward, the reaction is: we could have done better”. Of course one can always do better. But, when there are 25 members, it is absurd to always place emphasis on the detail that does not meet with approval, as this results in an atmosphere that deregulates the way the Community works. Sometimes the Commission hesitates to suggest what Europe needs because it has already heard the opinions of all Member States and has to take on board some twenty different stances. It would be better to assess whether an initiative is necessary and whether it gives Europe added value - if the answer is yes, then it should be put forward. And the Heads of Government? If they are asked what they think, they consider a meeting is positive “if they are not told off”. And so all tiresome matters are avoided, which is incompatible with efficiency and results.
Admitting differentiation with a change of method. What should be done? Above all, the constitutional treaty should not be dismantled as it would be impossible to find a better consensus. Going back to square one is senseless. And if a country does not agree? Then it is necessary to accept the fact that we do not all move forward together and admit differentiation but with a change of method, the point of departure being that one cannot force a country to accept what it does not want, but that this country cannot prevent the others from doing so. How? The concentric circle theory strengthens distrust. The Commission's proposals must be put to all. By its very nature, the Commission must not exclude anyone from a project, but “those who do not wish to take part at that point in time do not have to participate” - but they are the ones who decide. According to Etienne Davignon, differentiation is a business that is more risky than saying: it would be a necessary initiative but we are not going to take it because someone does not want it. “Differentiation is not an objective but a consequence”, the consequence of a no-vote by a Member State. We learn from experience, however, that it is difficult for any country to keep up a persistent “no”. We are not asking a country to give up its sovereignty but rather to use it in common in certain well defined areas.
Frankness is a duty. What else is to be said? We gather from the viscount's remarks on the limits of national referendums and the perplexity surrounding the hypothesis of European referendums, that, if a majority of countries vote against and the rejected proposal goes through anyway, then these countries would have the impression that something they do not want is being imposed upon them. Regarding the geographical limits of Europe, Etienne Davignon believes one should “dare” clarity. Europe has a “geographical surface area” that must be respected, avoiding the trap of wanting to resolve circumstantial questions (linked to specific cases or momentary problems, such as Belarus one day and Turkey another) by general responses. For the countries located outside the European geographical limits, there must be appropriate policies, explaining the situation and never giving a country the impression that the fact of not being admitted into the Union is a blow to its dignity, otherwise it would never agree to an alternative solution. It is necessary to explain and improve what is on offer, and have the courage to say, when necessary: the Treaty does not allow us to go further.
As you can see, Etienne Davignon does not suggest any magic formulae for overcoming the crisis but rather a state of mind, a way of behaving, courage and openness. And that is precisely what Europe needs.
(F.R.)