While waiting to comment properly on the European initiative in Lebanon, the quieter period in Community activity, which is coming to an end, has given us the opportunity to re-read a few statements of position, some more recent than others, from major European players.
1. Tony Blair's dilemma. Has the failure of his attempt to place the United Kingdom at the centre of Europe been recognised by Tony Blair himself? I said it had in my column and have been asked to enlarge on this. In a speech at Oxford University in February, Mr Blair said, “The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe, and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home and be utterly without influence in Europe. It's sort of: isolation or treason”.
To each his/her own interpretation. My own can be summed up in two words: bitter resignation. There is, however, one major exception: in the area of European foreign and defence policy, the United Kingdom continues to play an essential role. In a future article, I will try to clarify this apparent contradiction.
2. A European Commissioner supports “differentiation”. Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner responsible for future enlargement, has broken a taboo by defending the possibility of “differentiation” between Member States in order to allow the EU to move forward. In a speech delivered on 20 July at the Eduskunta Seminar in Finland, he said: “Like Jacques Delors, I believe in differentiated integration. This is not something new invented because Europe has enlarged. It was differentiation that allowed Europe to retain its dynamism” (he quoted the example of the euro). He did, however, specify the need for every project to be “open to every Member State which wishes to take part and is capable of so doing”; decisions have to be taken within the Community framework, respecting Community decision-making procedures. This is what Jacques Delors has always called for, as readers of this column well know.
Central and Eastern European Member States still have to be convinced that there are no plans to relegate them to some kind of inferior category and that the way of positive differentiation is open to them. I believe that getting rid of the habit of making a distinction between the old and new Member States will be an important step, particularly since there is now no reason for this distinction to exist.
3. Michel Rocard and two major shifts in capitalism. It is not always in official EP debates that MEPs have the opportunity to speak about the essential choices for the future of Europe. There are agendas to be observed, procedures for choosing speakers, balances of nationalities to be respected. Fortunately there are other platforms which allow important figures to communicate their ideas. For former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard, the opportunity was offered by the European Parliament Summer School. Mr Rocard delivered a broad survey, as reported in EUROPE 9236. I will highlight two points in his speech:
- the dangerous and iniquitous development in capitalism, which has shifted from the so-called “Rhenish” model, where the interests of all stakeholders, including those of employees, were taken into account, to the model dominated by shareholders, where only immediate financial return counts. The various types of shareholders (pensions funds, hedge funds, investment funds) demand a return of 15%, require companies to cut research and development budgets, destroy business conscience and bring uncertainty of employment and relocation. Mr Rocard stressed that the capitalist system's “correctors”, which have been destroyed, have to be re-established, by safeguarding social security, taking account of education and culture and building in an environmental factor;
- the financial imbalance caused by the United States: already in 2002, American debt had reached 240% of GNP, and the USA borrows two billion dollars per day. The financial world is sitting on a volcano which will erupt one day with repercussions we cannot imagine.
These two shifts in capitalism have already been analysed by economists and are sometimes condemned at specialist colloquiums, or used by movements which lose credibility because they draw from them extremist or popularity-seeking conclusions. What is lacking is a debate at the highest political levels. Michel Rocard has given us a foretaste which deserves a follow-up.
(F.R)