It's a strange situation for a journalist to be in: reporting a debate without being able to name the speakers! To be more exact, they can be named as participants, but there can be no indication of who said what. That is the situation I am in today, with regard to the debate organised on Tuesday by the Eur-Ifri association (director Pierre Defraigne) and led by a triad made up of Philippe de Schoutheete, former Belgian Permanent Representative, Jean-Victor Louis, honorary professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, and an adviser to the European Commission. Eur-Ifri debates are confidential to allow total freedom of expression.
I will restrict myself to a few, in my opinion, significant outcomes of the discussion.
1. The dangers of coalitions on the margins of treaties. The kinds of cooperation that develop between groups of Member States on the margins of, or outside, Community procedures are many and varied, and the question to be asked is, do coalitions between some Member States help the cohesion of the Union, or do they destroy it? There are numerous dangers with informal coalitions: they lack transparency; they operate totally or in part outside of the European institutions, the Community way of doing things and democratic rules; they compromise equality between Member States; they cause frustration, ill-feeling even, among those who are not included. At the same time, they sometimes play an important role (the Euro-group, for example) and they can return at any given time to the EU framework (Schengen Treaty). The solution would be to make “strengthened cooperation” operational and effective within the framework of the Treaty: the Constitutional Treaty had allowed for such a thing. For the moment, formal sessions of the Council sometimes only play the role of “recording chambers” for decisions already taken by some.
2. The borders of Europe. Once again it became clear that there was no possibility of a definite response for or against the need for them. The accession of certain countries that would like to join, it would have to be acknowledged, could not be considered, but, at the same time, it is impossible to say explicitly to a nearby country: You will never be able to become a Member State. Worthwhile and satisfactory alternative solutions must first be found. In the meantime, things remain vague.
3. Mr Sarkozy's sincerity on Europe. There was a clash of two different arguments. According to one, Nicolas Sarkozy has a “credibility problem”, because the general direction which he set out in his speech in Brussels last month is very far from what he had previously said about Europe. So, there is a need to be wary. According to the other argument, his change of stance is to be welcomed. Previously he repeated populist banalities, which can be heard all day long, about Europe, but as soon as he went deeper into the matter, he came to positive conclusions and a project for relaunch which is interesting. Was this the influence of his European advisers Michel Barnier and Alain Lamassoure? There is nothing wrong with that: he is to be congratulated on choosing them, taking their suggestions on board and being fully acquainted with the issues, including EU funding which is far from being simple.
It was obvious, however, that, among those taking part in the debate, doubts remained.
4. Successes and crises. Should greater emphasis be placed on the great successes of European integration, indisputable, yet little known, or the seriousness of the current crisis? The conclusion was that both have to be emphasised (I believe that there is too much talk of the crisis and that the reality of the results achieved is neglected).
5. “Collective preferences”. It was with great pleasure that I came across this concept again in the debate and that I noted it had lots of firm defenders (for example, MEP Pierre Jonckheer). I intend to come back in a future column to what I heard, in the light of the Doha Round and the new European Commission document on the EU's international competitiveness.
I do not want to conclude without quoting, in this instance giving the names of those “responsible”, two incisive phrases which are in no way embarrassing to their authors. Quite the opposite. Philippe de Schoutheete stressed that the “subsidiarity principle” had to go in both directions. It prevents Europe from becoming involved in matters that are better regulated in a more limited framework, but it also means that, where it is the most effective, the European level has to be the one used. He quoted the example of energy policy. Jean-Victor Louis warned against the current fall from grace of the slogan (excellent in itself) “united in diversity”. With too many coalitions on the margins of the Union's formal framework (see point 1, above), there is the danger of diversity without union.
(F.R.)