Two orientations have particularly struck me in the debate (during the tenth anniversary of the “Notre Europe” group, see yesterday's column) that brought together several current leaders of European construction: a) the unanimous observation that the EU at 27 members (and planned to further expand) should make some of its future progress without the immediate participation of all Member States; a) the very strong trend for considering that globalisation should be subject to rules and conditions.
Guy Verhofstadt's irony. The place and role of Europe in a context of globalisation was debated at length, staring with the unanimous rejection of Gordon Brown's famous sentence, that there is nothing separating countries from the world. Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt began by ironically pointing out that “I previously believed that the Commonwealth separated a country from the world”, elegantly alluding to the British change of mind when their Commonwealth collapsed as a compact political, economic and monetary block. All participants at the debate considered that the EU today constituted the intermediary links enabling Europeans (who will soon represent less than 5% of the world's population, despite the EU's expansion) to maintain an international weight in the world.
According to Pascal Lamy's definition, who drew the conclusions from the debate, Europe is “the appropriate intermediary” between any isolated European country and the world. He pointed out that none of the participants rejected globalisation although all asserted the demand to guide it. Between those calling first of all for protection against the excesses of “globalisation” and those calling above all for an opening up, a compromise is, according to Mr Lamy both “possible and indispensable”. Most of the participants believe that this compromise consists in subordinating any opening up to the effective application of common rules. European Parliament president, Josep Borrell, was the toughest advocate of social rights, freedom of the unions, and fair trade regulation, which he regarded as conditions without which “globalisation will develop in a way that goes against Europe”. Emilio Gabaglio called for “a democratic management of globalisation”. The recent initiatives of French prime minister Dominique de Villepin (a tax on imported carbon products, monetary shield with regard to undervalued currencies) were given a cautious mention but in a generally positive sense.
Adding not subtracting. The debate on the internal relaunch of European construction began with a very strong affirmation from Guy Verhofstadt that to get out of the Constitutional crisis they should not get rid of this or that from the Constitutional project, signed by all the different governments, but on the contrary, add what is lacking to it, notably the “economic limb” of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The historic Messina operation should be repeated: going beyond what has been rejected. This poses the question: what should be done with those who refuse? The Belgian prime minister's answer is unequivocal, allow those who want to move forward to do so.
Consensus from the East. The approval by Peter Medgyessy, the former prime minister and minister of finance in Hungary, deserves to be highlighted, which he gave to the differentiated gears formula and which he thinks is unavoidable. It will be necessary to create “open groups” between Member States seeking to advance, if not, the weaker countries will be obliged to put a brake on any progress they are not ready for. It is clear that those who remain outside should be encouraged and helped to join the avant-garde, which is the case today with the Euro. Mr Medgyessy's attitude is a positive signal from the East, awaited by Jacques Delors for a long time (who reaffirmed the unavoidable character of “differentiation” within the Union in his book “Tragic and Magnificent Europe” published by Notre Europe during this colloquy and on which this column will return in more detail). Pascal Lamy highlighted, in his conclusion, the trend for “advancing on what is agreed upon with whom one agrees”, no matter what name is given to this approach.
Two orientations to be debated. Josep Borrell vigorously underlined the demand to get rid of tax competition between states, beginning with the Euro-zone, and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the Party of European Socialists, said that he agreed entirely (which is likely to see some fights breaking out soon between some political forces and the Commission). Guy Verhofstadt emphasised that the taxes mentioned by Mr de Villepin (see above) would have a European nature: in his opinion, and in that of France, this would be a “formidable advance” towards the Union's own resources, an objective in which up to yesterday, the Belgian prime minister pointed out, “only a few of us ingenuous souls believed”. (F.R.)