When a colloquium brings together a large number of those who have contributed to the construction of a united Europe (Jacques Delors, Etienne Davignon, Jacques Santer, Karl Lamers, Jean-François Poncet, Wim Kok to name but a few) and those who have similar responsibilities today (Josep Borrell, Guy Verhofstadt, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen and others) in addition to Pascal Lamy and Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, currently engaged in other tasks, lessons, rather than uniform conclusions, should be drawn. I am speaking about the colloquium which, last Saturday in Paris, celebrated the tenth anniversary of the “Notre Europe” group.
There have always been difficulties. I am not going to hold forth on the impetus and inspiration brought by these witnesses to and actors in the European story, nor on the warmth of the public feeling them so close. Their memories constitute in themselves an injection of confidence. They pointed out to those who today allow themselves to become so easily demoralised, that Europe has always known moments of difficulty, some even worse than those of the present, but it always bounced back. Jean-François Poncet, France's negotiator on the Treaty of Rome, recalled that his country's dramatic “No” on the first European army project (the EDC Treaty) was followed a few months later by the Messina declaration, out of which came the Treaty of Rome. He also called on people “never to stop in the face of British reticence”: the Prime Minister of the UK once told him in London that his country could never accept a common external tariff to be applied to the Commonwealth, but he added, “On you go, and if you are successful, we'll join you one day”. Jacques Santer highlighted how many innovations that people dream of introducing today used to exist. Industrial policy? Without the “Davignon plan”, which saved steel making at the time, not a single kilo of steel would have been produced anywhere in Europe for a very long time. The energy policy? The ECSC and Euratom had arranged it in key areas like coal and atomic energy. Peace between peoples? In Europe, with the most frequent and deadliest wars, this was achieved half a century ago. A European defence policy? European leaders realised the need for this the day, in Washington, when President Bush (the father of the present incumbent) refused to intervene in the war in Yugoslavia, saying, “It's up to you, the Europeans”. But at the time the EEC had no means of taking action.
Karl Lammers stressed the importance of bouncing back after disappointments, recalling Helmut Kohl's bitterness at the reticence and reservations surrounding the reunification of his country: many Europeans were afraid of a re-birth of its power. The Chancellor's response, far from pouring cold water on European integration, was the renunciation of the national currency (which frightened others) and support for the birth of the euro, despite the reservations of national economic circles and even the people. It is through progress that Europe overcomes its hurdles.
Save the institutional method. How can the machine be fired up again now? For the “oldies”, the priority is to retain the institutional structure set up by the Treaty of Rome. With great panache, Viscount Davignon showed the extent to which the “Community method” is vital: the Commission must be the driving force, without having to make sure first of all if Member States are in agreement: seeking prior consensus indicates a willingness to find a compromise before knowing on what! Parliament has to debate every project openly and the Council has to play its role as a Community institution without restricting itself to inter-governmental negotiations. All the participants agreed on this issue, with some reservations from Wim Kok who does not believe in the relaunch of the EU through the institutions. He feels that, firstly, confidence has to be restored in economic development because citizens are not interested in institutional debate. Viscount Davignon acknowledged that the institutional debate is not a solution in itself, but nothing is possible without the instruments that allow action to be taken. An end has to be brought to the “periods of reflection” (reflection so deep and secret that no one knows what its focus was), and but to take up the debate on the substance, but without compromising on the institutional balance.
Jacques Delors, who was to close the debate, stressed the role of the Commission: it has to reflect every day on the good of Europe, its role is essential, there are no alternatives.
Tomorrow I will summarise the outcome of the successive debate between the representatives of the generations in power.
(F.R.)