The Easter holidays were, as ever, conducive to reading and this year's reading-matter abounded because the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provoked a real avalanche of commentaries, articles, interviews and different speeches. The review of the daily press established by the European Commission services exceeded 400 pages every day! I'll leave out the summaries and shortened versions of the history of European construction. They are useful and invaluable for providing new generations with the means to understand the significance and scope of the enterprise, and for reminding the older generations what they often forget or ignore. But it is not the readers of Agence EUROPE who need reminding of such obvious facts.
I have therefore focused on a few striking positions that have been taken. It will come as no surprise to the loyal readers of this column if I, above all, return to the speeches made by Jacques Delors (today I'll concentrate on the interview to Les Echos and his speech to the Belgian Senate) and Jean-Claude Juncker (for tomorrow). Two figures who still bring something new and interesting in their look at the past and in their suggestions for the future.
A misunderstood concept. Jacques Delors first of all reaffirmed and clarified a concept that is all too often ignored or badly understood by public opinion and by a large part of the political class: it is not a text that has a constitutional or institutional character that determines the contents of Europe's policies. In our systems, decisions depend on election results. Spain modified its internal policies and its attitude to European construction when the Spanish people chose Mr Zapatero instead of Mr Aznar and the same thing happened in Great Britain after Mrs Thatcher's replacement. Certainly, at a European level, compromises are needed and will always be needed between national orientations but the principle is the same, especially since the broadening of the role of European Parliament as co-legislator, which is the result of a direct election. This is what Jacques Delors had to say: “The current majority in the Union is more supportive of a very liberalised market economy than a regulated economy. It is closer to the ideas of the centre right than those of social democrats to which I belong. A constitution will not change this fact. The debate needs to be carried out in the political arena”. This consideration is valid whatever “political faith” one supports.
Another protocol to the list. The importance and meaning of the Constitutional Treaty does not therefore lie in a hypothetical definition of the contents of European policies. Delors explained: “I supported this treaty because I approved of the institutionalisation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a way to affirm and apply our values and because I judged that the decision-making system was better than in the current treaties…I think that a social protocol should be added to what will be kept in the current constitutional draft treaty. We could include political will in it, to go further towards convergence of living conditions. We could triple the Erasmus programme in it; this would give another boost to the Europe of youth, the basis of the future. The introduction of a minimum wage could be envisaged on the condition that it is in proportion to the wealth of each country. This would pull us upwards and not downwards”.
Jacques Delors, however, rejects the affirmation that Europe will be absent and inefficient in the social domain. He points out that gender equality is a legal obligation included in the Treaties; negotiation between social partners at a European level was launched on his initiative in 1985; minimum standards were defined for working conditions. Added to which is the essential element represented by the economic and social cohesion objective, which is put into the concrete solidarity of the EU to less developed regions. He observed that, “When I arrived at the Commission in 1985, this policy represented €5bn in the European budget; today it represents €40bn!” (and its results in the regions which have been able to use European support effectively are well known). In the social fields, however, responsibility remains in the hands of member states: “employment policy, social security and income distribution are national competencies”. Member states are responsible for it. It is understood that those that do not apply appropriate policies or carry out the necessary reforms, should not blame Europe for their inefficiency or under development. This is what Jacques Delors had to say: “What each country ought to do itself, Europe will not do in its place. Countries in the Eurozone that have structurally adapted their economies have clearly visible results in terms of growth and jobs…We can always make Europe the scapegoat for internal problems. This reminds me of my childhood, when Guignol always used to hit the same character. In France, political leaders adore beating Europe up. The result is the no vote in the referendum”.
What should be done in the Eurozone. These remarks in no way represent absolution for Europe's shortcomings, far from it. The EU will have a greater role to play in the consolidation and improvement of the economic situation in the Eurozone. Jacques Delors pointed out that he had fought in his time for a “national economic policies coordination pact” to be set up alongside the Stability and Monetary Pact. Member states did not support him. To resolve this problem “there is no need to change the statutes of the European Central Bank (ECB). The problem is not the ECB, it's the effects from it, coordination of economic policies”.
After making a passing but sharply critical reference to the “incomprehensible and damaging” behaviour of leaders who would go as far as burning down the ECB, Delors explained that the question that counted was one of what the ministers of the economy and finance should do in this respect: “But they don't do anything! They talk and that's all. The European Commission should be in charge of dressing up a balance sheet every three or six months for the Eurozone economies and proposing what could be done to increase convergence. This would help maximise added value resulting from economic and monetary union”. The Eurogroup should “genuinely become reinforced and managed as such. European citizens should be able to see that when there is global monetary disorder, the EU speaks with a single voice and has its say…On the terms of the Treaty, the Council has its say on exchange policy”.
Taxation, competition and industrial policies. Delors also highlighted another aspect of what Europe should be doing in the economic and monetary field: partial harmonisation of tax policies. Confirming and explaining what he has been asserting for a number of years, Delors said: “Within the Eurozone, which is part of a project of political union, it is not possible to tolerate tax dumping. Work has begun. It consists of harmonising the tax band on companies and then rates for establishing a band, as is the case for VAT. This is crucial; if it does not come about, we will no longer be speaking about economic and monetary union”.
On competition policy he underlined the need to “resolve a delicate problem: to what level should competition rules be applied - to help consumers but without weakening the position of European companies?” He highlighted the case of Air France, a problem that arose when he was the president of the Commission. At the time, he opposed certain public subsidies (allowing for the company to be restructured) to be sanctioned. This would have resulted in Air France disappearing when in fact the restructuring enabled the company to completely rejuvenate itself.
He defined European industrial policy as “the reasonable application of competition rules, more active cooperation in research and innovation, the taking into account of the European interest in the major sectors, such as energy and transport”.
“Differentiation” is inevitable. The question of strengthened cooperation was mentioned with regard to the Eurozone and Delors reaffirmed and explained his convictions that a certain level of “differentiation” between member states is indispensable. Let's listen to what he has to say: “European construction was only able to progress because certain member states were able to go further than others. What would Europe be today without the Schengen Agreements on getting rid of the borders, or without the Euro?”
He explained: “For me, greater Europe can only set itself three objectives over the next fifteen years: consolidation of the peace area, mutual recognition and security; creation of a framework for sustainable development and solidarity; protecting and stimulating cultural diversity. For the remainder: currency, defence, certain common foreign policy actions, differentiation is needed. If we do not want to do it, we will stagnate when the world is going at high speed”. Mr Delors also explained that deepening European construction “will come from a new treaty that allows for better decision making, via strengthened cooperation initiatives, beginning with economic and monetary union”. His vision of strengthened cooperation was outlined in a speech to the Belgian Senate. I'll make a point of returning to it in detail.
Jacques Delors' conclusion was as follows: “The Europe of today is not what I imagined twenty five years ago but I am proud of this Europe”.
Tomorrow I'll be looking at what Jean-Claude Juncker had to say. (FR)