Beyond bereavement. The emotion and feelings of acknowledgement with which pro-European France and Community figures across the board bid François Lamoureux farewell contains a significance that goes beyond present feelings of bereavement. Memories of François should, with a number of developments to which I will later return, help overcome the atmosphere of discouragement and scepticism characterising French spirits over a number of years with regard to the construction of a united Europe.
For half a century, France has represented the spark igniting the European idea and the crucible from where projects are forged and made concrete (we only need to mention the names of Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Jacques Delors), and at the same time, the place where barriers were raised or where the pace slowed down, with the “no” vote to the European Community of Defence (ECD), the “empty seat” created by General De Gaulle, the no vote on the Constitution. Recently, the negative aspect of feeling has prevailed to an unreasonable degree: even the most sincere pro-Europeans look like they are losing confidence. And yet, electoral calculations, pettiness and lies aside, it was France that brought Europe figures like François Lamoureux and who would effectively devote his life to the European idea. We owe the most poignant formula to Jean-Louis Bourlanges, “There are a certain number of us who believe that this man died of a Shakespearean disease and who expressed a collective disillusionment”: the disillusion of those who have placed such hope in the Constitutional project and who had worked so hard to make it a reality, for Europe's progress in general and who had felt the bitterness of the blockage, in the case of François more so and who painfully observed that circumstances had permanently ousted him from active and personal participation in its re-launch. He concluded from this, according to Pascal Lamy, that “there is no longer a place in Brussels for pioneers and veterans of his fibre”.
The emotional obituary of Jacques Delors. What François never perhaps understood was to what point his action represented and represents an incentive and model for all of us who want Europe's unity, as well as the scope and significance of his concrete support for the common ideal. In his “Memoirs”, published in 2004, Jacques Delors, who in 1985, as president of the Commission chose him as his Deputy Head of Cabinet, spoke of the “irreplaceable François Lamoureux”, highlighting two particular episodes: a) his “institutional inspiration”, which at the June 1985 European Council allowed, despite the veto by Mrs Thatcher, for the Intergovernmental Conference, from where the Single Act came, to make the single border-free market possible, as well as the re-launch of the European project, which had run aground at the time; b) the alternative draft Constitution, known as Penelope, put together over a three month period by an extremely small team under his leadership, a project which would have made a large part of the burdensome “third part” superfluous in the current draft and which would have devised a solution for cases of non-ratification by certain Member States. Jacques Delors wrote (the French referendum had still not taken place), “I only have one regret, that the Convention did not take the Penelope report into consideration…The work of Lamoureux and his colleagues for me still remains a source of reflection and reference”.
Speaking at François' funeral last week (alongside Pascal Lamy, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, Eneko Landaburu), Jacques Delors underlined “his exemplary value for all young people asking themselves or searching for a sense in their lives” by posing the question, what did François used to do for developing the building blocks of his reflection and seizing all possible openings?” To the physical and intellectual price of going beyond normal limitations and going against the normal rhythms of the human body”. Delors defined him as “one of the masters behind the re-launch of European construction, in all its dimensions, from 1984 onwards” and explained that “without his stubborn determination and his capacity for synthesis, the Galileo satellite navigation system would never have been born”. As for the Penelope project, “it was perceived as a nuisance by the Convention and by several Member States”. According to Jacques Delors, “once more François was taking risks, and nothing will make me think that he didn't pay for that”.
Rigor and kindness. Pascal Lamy, who worked for several years with him at the European Commission stated in Le Monde (I've already quoted a passage above). The Director General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) considers François as “one of the most determined builders of the European Union…, the linchpin of the broad internal market, the single act and Treaty of Maastricht”.
He highlighted, “the precision, coherence and power” of the Penelope project, which in his opinion was rejected “because of its excess of federalist ambition”. He described François as “as a man of integrity, rugged, with deep convictions, an iron tenacity and unbending demands”.
His “rugged personality” was the reflection of his moral rigor. I also experienced this in some of my epistolary exchanges with him. I had the right to the description “dear friend” when I was sufficiently firm and determined in my commentaries but became an impersonal “Mr” when I disappointed him in any way. Nonetheless, Jacques Delors, in a speech already quoted from, spoke of his “personal experience of meetings, in and out of work, with such an affectionate person, I was going to say so tender in his regard: with privileged moments in my life”. And it is on this picture that I end this brief and insufficient recollection of François Lamoureux.
Evolution in France? I alluded in the previous page to some of the evolutions that allow for a more positive orientation to be seen in France with regard to European unity. Several candidates (virtual, for the moment) for the presidency of the Republic have announced that they will dedicate a sizeable amount of space to European issues in their election programmes. It is therefore possible that next spring, French people will have their say not only on domestic affairs but also on attitudes towards Europe, which affect their choices.
The Minister's four suggestions. In the meantime, Catherine Colonna, Delegate Minister for European Affairs took some firm and brave positions on 29 August at the annual Ambassadors of France conference. The newspapers reporting on it only focused on a single aspect of the speech: the denunciation of the shortcomings in how Europe works. But there was something else. It is true that Ms Colonna spoke of the “a languishing disease, generalised weariness with Europe” and a “distancing of public opinion with regard to the European project”. But at the same time she indicated remedies, formulated out of suggestions. In her opinion, the demand from the public had naturally changed today, “there is practically no problem without turning to Europe to rectify it”. People's expectations should be taken into account. The EU is confronted by a global demand for it to act as a “global actor” but it only possesses basic instruments to become this actor and on the condition that it has the political will power. Catherine Colonna also indicated to ministers, parliamentarians and ambassadors who listened to her, the results of her experience and reflections, and put forward a number of orientations that are not in the least revolutionary for Community circles but which, for official France, are innovative. I'll summarise them into four points:
re-establishing the “way the EU works” and which is “becoming more and more inter-governmental” by recovering the principles and instruments of integration and harmonisation;
re-opening the debate on Europe's identity and the conditions governing its “capacity of absorption” of future accession candidates;
recognising “that we will not become a global power by only dedicating 1% of its GDP to it” and envisaging in time, new transfers of resources from Member States' budgets to the Union budget;
reforming the decision-making mechanism “so that efficiency and legitimacy are consolidated” by strengthening the three poles: the Council, by revising its voting rules, the Commission by reducing its members so that it can work in a collegial way and Parliament by modernising the way MEPs are elected. Ms Colonna even dared to raise the sensitive problem of the “Bonus for states' fragmentation”, which multiplied the dimension of institutions and, for example, allocated 6 or 7 European Commissioners and as many judges to the Court of Justice and to the countries from the former Yugoslavia (against each of Germany's and the other big countries).
Up to what point do these orientations correspond to the ideas of the government she is part of? Ms Colonna clearly explained that what she was talking about was “on the basis of experience that I have had since June 2005, without hiding what I think and by doing my best to tell the truth”. It remains to be seen to what point her speech on 29 August corresponds to what her country's orientation will be in the future. Her acceptance will be the best homage possible to the memory of François Lamoureux and all those who want to continue to do battle. Let's just for the moment take note of the fact that the minister specifically responsible for European affairs, has spoken.
(F.R.)