Let's avoid any confusion and not mix things up. The positive opinion I expressed yesterday on the Spring European Council's conclusions does not include the debates developing on institutional reform and relaunching European policy. On the contrary, on these aspects, divergences are not being ironed out but are getting deeper. British, Polish and Czech political forces are appealing for an inter-governmental and less integrated Europe and consider that the Constitutional Treaty is dead. At the same time, other member states and institutions (the Parliament and Commission) assert their support, with increasing vigour, for relaunching the integration process. Faced with this dichotomy, the prospect of a European Union consisting of two circles is receiving more and more overt support; in France, this scenario has almost become an official doctrine.
Projects abound. I admit that I have not succeeded in keeping abreast of the whole avalanche of different texts and suggestions. Interesting ideas proliferate and some of them have been taken up in several texts. Andrew Duff has published two texts that are quite different from each other. Pierre Lequiller has drawn up a complete text for a revised Constitutional Treaty. Gérard Onesta's idea of a “Treaty+” was so successful that is was taken up just about everywhere (often with differences added to the contents). The federalist inter-group of the European Parliament remains faithful to the term “Constitution”. Hubert Haenel's reflections on his experiences as a former member of the Convention, suggest that the European Commission retain the Commissioner per member state formula, “given the obvious drawbacks to any kind of rotation formula” (but without indicating how a Commission thus composed would have a legitimacy that would enable it to vote by simple majority).
Added to the texts of parliamentarians and former members of the Convention are those of other figures, which sometimes are extremely interesting. The French version of the legal analysis of the Constitutional Treaty by the Council of the Union's legal adviser, Jean-Claude Piris (our European Library supplement spoke broadly about the English version) contains, as well as a preface by Jean-Claude Juncker (which could almost be quoted in its entirety), additional sections clarifying several controversial aspects characterising the situation, by destroying some of the illusions and false ideas. Robert Toulemon's “Aimer l'Europe” is not (or not just) an act of love but above all a book that “aims to arm European militants for future battles”. An example of this: in order to add the complementary notions of social, fiscal, budgetary and economic governance to the current texts that several member states would like, he proposes overcoming the opposition of reticent countries by not waiting for a new treaty and by “putting complementary measures in place as part of the Eurogroup framework”.
Towards a Europe of two circles? The quotation by Mr Toulemon brings me back to the assertion made at the beginning: the idea of two circles has almost become France's official doctrine, not because of some kind of selection or other made by member states but because of the refusal of some member states to join up with those that are determined to move forward. The three candidates the French people will choose from to elect the president of the Republic have expressed similar orientations on this specific point. In his speech on 21 February in Strasbourg, Nicolas Sarkozy described a Europe that has openly been rejected by several member states. In his speech on 8 March in Brussels, François Bayrou was more explicit. Having indicated priority areas for the Europe of tomorrow, he added that it was likely that only some member states would see themselves as part of these new ambitions: “it will undoubtedly be necessary for some to move forward as pioneers. The basis of this political Europe will be the eurozone countries. The first European circle will be built upon this relatively broad basis that is open to those that accept the principles and responsibilities incorporated into democratic and not intergovernmental procedures. This will not be an 'à la carte' Europe'… but the articulation of a Europe with more breadth, a Europe of trade, legal regulation and democracy and a Europe that is more compact, constituted upon its foundations by those who strive further and have further goals”. Ségolène Royal has not been so clear, at least until now, but the theory of the two circles had already been broached by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, her adviser on European issues.
It is on this road that the France of tomorrow intends to get over this division between countries that have ratified the Constitutional Treaty and those that have not, and replace it with another division: that between member states that call for European relaunch and integration, and those that do not.
(F.R.)