The failure of Tony Blair. Leaving aside the short-term difficulties in building Europe, what is the basic long-term problem? There is no doubt in my opinion: the British problem. One day we are going to have to answer the question of whether it is possible to create a Europe with its own identity and an autonomous voice in the world, with the United Kingdom as part of it. The situation is complex. There are areas where the British have given the lead and are at the forefront, for example in the implementation and operation of the great market without borders. Tony Blair has said several times that he wants his country to be at the centre of European actions and initiatives. I believe he was sincere, but he has failed, and he acknowledged as much when he stated that, for a British Prime Minister, there is no alternative: either join the European project, and be rejected by public opinion, the press and most of the political class, or give in to Euroscepticism, and the country excludes itself from European achievements and ambitions. Tony Blair was at the point of putting two referendums on track, one on joining the euro, the other on the Constitutional Treaty, and the fact that he announced them meant that he had hopes of winning them both. These plans vanished (for reasons for which his country was not directly responsible), and, for his expected successor Gordon Brown, there is nothing between national States and the world level: the intermediate stage called Europe does not exist. He sees the European Union as just one of many agreements between a group of countries, less important than the links which bind the United Kingdom and the United States.
Ratification impossible. There is nothing new in what I have just written; these are ideas already developed in this column. So why have I come back to it now? Because Philippe de Schoutheete has given his thoughts, and his conclusions are even more radical than mine. On the Constitution, he is surprised by the “silence surrounding the British position. It would seem obvious, however, that neither the current government nor any other government that could reasonably be expected to be elected given the political situation would have the means to have the Constitutional Treaty ratified”. Here is the opinion of the former Permanent Representative of Belgium to the EU: “British opinion is rather more sceptical on European issues today than when Tony Blair came to power in 1997. A man, convinced, popular, charismatic, and with an overwhelming parliamentary majority, has not been able to alter the basic ambiguity of his country's position with regard to building Europe”. And what if the Opposition comes to power? “On the Conservative side, the party is divided equally between those who want less Europe and those who want to leave it altogether.” The logical conclusion: “At best, the United Kingdom will continue to stand where it has stood for half a century, neither fully outside nor fully inside a movement which is bringing European countries more deeply together”. At best …
If it is accepted that the United Kingdom will never ratify the Constitutional Treaty as we know it, what is the point of the procedure and the timetable drawn up by heads of government to take Europe out of its Constitutional crisis (summarised in this column in bulletin 9215)? Are the British pretending to accept them without believing in them? The germ of an answer has been picked up by Pierre Lequiller, chairman of the French National Assembly delegation on European affairs. Certain that national parliaments will have an important role to play in the future of the Constitutional Treaty, decided to send “missi dominici” (the choice of ecclesiastically flavoured designation was his) for direct contacts with the national parliaments of nine Member States. He went to London himself, and he discovered the extent of institutional reform in the EU, and on the constitutional level in general, which the British are willing to accept. It is not much. I will give details tomorrow.
Everything would indicate that the turmoils of the draft Constitutional Treaty have given the United Kingdom the opportunity to slowly demolish the integrated and autonomous Europe which other Member States stubbornly continue to believe in. But at the same time, the British contribution and involvement still seem indispensable in the areas of foreign policy and defence. Is there a way out of this contradiction? I will try to bring some assessment of the situation tomorrow.
(F.R.)