It will come as a surprise to no one that Jean-Claude Juncker was asked so many questions by the media of several member states on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. He is the longest-serving member of the European Council (he has been a member of it since January 1995), he is the only long-duration president of a European ministerial body (the Eurogroup) and he was one of the main authors of the Treaty of Maastricht, which gave rise to the euro. His opinion is worth something in Europe. I would like to sum up his interviews (particularly with the newspapers La Tribune and Les Echos), having summed up those of Jacques Delors yesterday.
A new treaty is vital. Mr Juncker believes in the possibility of a new European Treaty to be negotiated rapidly, to replace the draft which was rejected by two member states: “If we do not move too far away from the substance of the Constitutional Treaty, an agreement is possible” (our translation throughout). On what basis? “I believe that the first part of the draft, which outlines the new institutional arrangements, should be kept in place. I would not be in favour of the second part, on fundamental rights, not being included in the new treaty, in a form to be determined. As for the third part, which is unpopular and largely unexplained because it is largely inexplicable, we must keep the steps forward it takes: a legal basis for energy policy; institutional improvements in the field of external policy and diplomacy; a passerelle clause for social policy”.
The generation which is currently in power must “bequeath to those who follow an architectural body which cannot be destroyed”. This is vital because in the absence of strong institutions and common rules, “when you no longer have a generation to tell you how things were before Europe existed, you will end up falling back on exclusively national considerations”. Mr Juncker referred to that day in December 1997, when the European Council took the definitive decision on the accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe and, as president, he asked the heads of government of the new member states to tell him where they had been 10 years earlier: “out of the eight of them, six had been in prison”. Who can still remember that? And who is aware of the tempests which would have hit various European currencies, at different times, if the euro hadn't existed?
Here is Mr Juncker's position on two controversial economic issues.
A. The functioning of the Eurogroup. The ministers of the Eurozone are already discussing the problems within the Eurogroup amongst themselves: “we discuss all subjects very freely amongst ourselves: the inflation and growth differentials from one country to the next; the speed of the transmission mechanisms for the monetary decisions of one country compared to its neighbours; the major budgetary choices for the whole of the zone and those taken individually in each country. To reveal these discussions would be propitious to the image of the president, but given the stage we are at, it would also be highly risky. Giving greater visibility to the work of the Eurogroup may kill off a genuine coordination of economic policy before it even starts, because all of that would disappear in the internal polemics of each member state (…). There is nothing stopping us from reinforcing the coordination of economic policies; but the will to do this is lacking in certain countries”. Why is this? Without giving a direct answer, Mr Juncker observed that the coordination of economic policies involves a situation in which “nobody is allowed to move before the signal is given for all of them, which removes the freedom of movement from national economic policy. This is the logic of the single currency”.
B. Corporate taxation. Mr Juncker said: “I am a supporter of the idea of coordinating or harmonising the tax base. As to making this an element of reinforced corporation, this would, without a doubt, be desirable. But here again, the governments have their misgivings”.
Two sentences from the president. I would like to conclude this “review of press reviews” with two sentences from the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso:
“We must forget the project of a federal super-state. I do not even think that this is desirable. After the Second World War, the ideal of the United States of Europe may have been a driving force, but Europe has been enlarged and it must respect its diversity, which is a wealth in itself”.
On the “Berlin Decoration” (which did not inspire enthusiasm in everybody, least of all myself): “do not underestimate the value of symbolic gestures. And do not forget that it is the first text of this size to which the 12 countries which most recently joined the EU have contributed”.
(F.R.)