Two concepts. How can two different concepts on the future of Europe be reconciled? How can the difficult and inescapable reflection/negotiation kick off in a positive way? There is no question of dividing Europe into two categories: the goodies (those in favour of integration) and the baddies (those who are opposed to it). All the ideas expressed are respectable; they correspond to the mentality, character and history and people of each country. Over the years, the positions have actually got partially closer; the federalists recognise that national identities should be respected and that the aim is not to create a European super-state; the adversaries of integration accept transfers of competencies to Europe (even in areas such as defence and energy) and more majority voting. Nonetheless, two opposing concepts remain.
In Great Britain, the restrictive thesis won out when Tony Blair admitted last year that his attempt to place his country at the centre of European construction had failed: “The dilemma of a British prime minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe; and you betray Britain: be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home and be utterly without influence in Europe”. At the same time, some countries of Central and Eastern Europe are still making a priority out of affirming their national identity in relation to European integration (which is partly understandable for those that lost their identity or risked losing it under Stalin). The result is that certain of these countries create the impression of wanting to keep the benefits of accession (solidarity, financial support) by neglecting their responsibilities (but the very recent softening of the Polish position is already significant: EUROPE 9389).
Three preliminary suggestions. Faced with this situation, courage is needed to begin reflecting on other possibilities. It is understandable that Angela Merkel's responsibility for presenting the June European Council with a “roadmap” on the constitutional relaunch means that she is striving to obtain a compromise that is acceptable to everyone in such a vague way that no-one will take umbrage: a simplified treaty that citizens understand, to be negotiated in a few months and signed next December, followed by ratification by all member states in 12-14 months so that it can enter into force before the 2009 European elections. But she alone is aware of the “red lines” that should not be overstepped, as drawn up by the different governments in secret bilateral consultations (and which are still going on).
Other European figures, who are not obliged to keep schtum, are speaking out more openly. I'll leave the candidates in the French presidential elections aside, two of whom have explicitly referred to a Europe of two circles; they have tactical reasons for inserting their country into the first one and thereby avoiding the repercussions of a no vote in a referendum on the constitutional treaty.
I prefer to look at other starting points. Jacques Delors considers it “elementary” that heads of government “talk to each other about divisions between them”, instead of extending a silence that has lasted for decades and which, if it persists, would lead to the gradual unravelling of the European Union.
Jean-Claude Juncker warned against keeping simplistic formulas in the first part of the Constitutional Treaty and abandoning the rest. He declared: “We should not abandon the progress we decided upon when negotiating the third part of the treaty. It seems essential to me to keep the balances between the three parts rather than putting a cross on one or other part”.
Valérie Giscard D'Estaing spoke out against the risk of an incorrect interpretation of “strengthened cooperation” (therefore criticising the two circle approach); “This mechanism must allow us to go forward and not exclude. Strengthened cooperation is presented as an exclusion procedure, as if there were a Europe for the 'goodies', leaving the 'baddies' outside. The reverse is what needs to be done. We have 27 members and the new members are often as pro-European or even more so than the others. A project needs to be announced and proposed to all members. If some refuse, the others go forward without them but they will do this because of the refusal of certain members”.
Here are three recommendations: that heads of governments speak to each other about Europe's ambitions and objectives; that we do not call for the third part of the Constitutional Treaty to be thrown out because balance needs to be safeguarded; and that strengthened cooperation is interpreted correctly. Three ideas that will get the reflection and, in my opinion, the inevitably tough negotiations, off to a good start.
(F.R.)