Explanations and incentives were par for the course. It was not from that point of view that the event held last week by the European College of Parma is worthy of comment. Bringing together, as it did, two vice-presidents of the European Commission, Jacques Barrot and Franco Frattini, as well as figures such as Etienne Davignon, Mario Monti, Antoinette Spaak, Martin Bangemann and many others, and including a written message from Jacques Delors, it was clear from the start that its results would be far from banal. But the aspects which may have been the most important for a public made up of political decision-makers, university professors and students of all nationalities, all of whom are specialists in European affairs, were not the main thrust of it for the readers of Agence EUROPE who, beyond the explanations and incentives in favour of European integration, instead asked: what's new? What suggestions were made with a view to a new, embryonic European treaty?
Truths to be reaffirmed. It is true that there are a number of truths which must be reaffirmed constantly. The analyses of the aforementioned orators, some of whom have played and continue to play a major role in European affairs, rightly stressed the extent to which the perception of European unification has been distorted over the years, by successive generations who never experienced the hopes and ambitions of the early days. Each speaker gave arguments proving that, in the global panorama of the second half of last century, the unification of Europe represented the most important and innovative event as well as the most spectacular success, and that it promises results which will be just as significant for this century, in the face of the new challenges ahead. Historians and philosophers will, one day, analyse how and why great swathes of public opinion were fooled and misled to the point that the responsibilities of the member states are being falsely attributed to Europe. Jean-Claude Juncker commented recently on the behaviour of governments who spend all week blaming Europe for the problems they are unable to solve, then on Sunday, ask the general public to vote for Europe, and are consequently surprised at the result. In many cases, there is no more precise way of expressing it than borrowing the title Jacques Barrot gave his latest book: Europe Is Not What You Think It Is.
Europe is a democracy. Far be it from me to suggest that the decision-makers of Europe are never wrong, and that those who bear the responsibility for running it today are completely above reproach. Becoming side tracked, a lack of courage, an absence of vision, a short-sighted defence of purely national or sectorial interests: the list of shortcomings, which we are all responsible for, is a long one. But these errors do not justify any calling into question of the principle of European integration. The citizens should become more aware of the fact that they increasingly have the ability to determine the orientations and functioning of the EU themselves. In Parma, Mario Monti stressed that European democracy works better than certain national democracies, quoting the gradual reinforcement of the powers of the European Parliament (which takes its stance on the choices of the European Commissioners, which has already forced a Commission to stand down and, more recently, rejected the appointment of one of the Commissioners), the increasing weight held in Brussels by institutions and bodies representing the regions and other local entities, and other aspects of growing democratisation and transparency.
Europe is not an option. The “encouragement and incentives” plank took almost as much room in Parma as the plank on explanations and clarifications. At its most basic, the message was: the swift relaunch of Community construction is not just a desirable option, it is an unavoidable necessity to prevent our countries and Europe as a whole from disappearing as players on the world stage, with a role to play in these new challenges. Europe is, at one in the same time, formidable and fragile. In the next few months, it must define the new treaty, if this is to be in force in the first half of 2009.
The triangle under threat. I would like to move on, now, to the third and final part of this commentary: innovative ideas. The starting point was the written message of Jacques Delors, which highlighted the safeguarding and consolidation of the Community method as a necessary element. None of the new ambitions can be achieved - be it the response to the double challenge of energy and the environmentm or redressing the balance of the Economic and Monetary Union - if the efficiency of institutional functioning is not maintained and improved. In the view of Jacques Delors, intergovernmental cooperation is a fallacy; the Parliament/Council/Commission institutional triangle “has always been one of the reasons for the progress made by European integration, it is a source of clarity, simplicity and efficiency” (our translation). Two sides of the institutional triangle are currently under threat: the role and the right of initiative of the Commission; the functioning of the General Affairs Council (whereas the third side, that of the Parliament, is developing in leaps and bounds). “The role of the European Council must be centred on the main options and the definition of the broad orientations on the basis of work carried out jointly by the General Affairs Council and the Commission”.
This word of warning from Jacques Delors was shared by all of those who took the floor, and some of them put forward suggestions. It is these that I would like to emphasise.
Budgetary concerns. The vice-president of the Commission, Jacques Barrot, gave a few examples of cases in which the Commission can act with great efficiency if it has a clear mandate from the Council (one example of this is the aviation agreement with the United States) and a few examples of the importance of the support of the European Parliament (maritime policy). At the same time, however, he stressed the fact that the budgetary challenge is every bit as vital as institutional concerns. The reflection on the income and expenditure of the EU will start next year and, in the absence of adequate resources, it will be impossible to move forward such essential projects as Galileo and the extension of Erasmus. Happily, Mr Barrot added, the Parliament is there, thinking of future rows over the budget.
The cost of non-Europe. Franco Frattini, vice-president of the Commission, put back on the table an idea which was discussed a few years ago: assessing the cost of non-Europe, so that the citizens can be aware of this. Information for the citizens is a priority. The Italians do not know that had it not been for the Euro, their currency would have collapsed. Information is essential also to avoid a culture clash: for millions of immigrants, sexual equality is an unknown concept; they must understand that this is a concrete principle in the EU. Europe cannot give up its identity.
Young ambassadors and a committee. Alfonso Mattera, who is the director of science at the European College of Parma, launched two ideas: a) creating a network of “Young Ambassadors of the European Message”, which will be made up of young graduates of European studies (from the European University Institute of Florence, the university colleges of Bruges and Parma, specialised institutes functioning within celebrated universities throughout Europe), who would be tasked with bringing the European message to secondary, or even primary, school; they will be “Young people talking to other young people, in a common language and tongue, following a common line of thought, much more capable than an adult of illustrating the reality of Europe” and the prospects which it opens up to young people; b) setting up an action committee inspired by the old Monnet Committee, and taking up its spirit and ambitions.
The fundamental question. Having challenged the image of a none too democratic Europe (its democratisation is not yet perfect but is much more real than some people would have you believe, see above), and having included in its ethical values equal rights for the smaller member states (which, in an intergovernmental system, would never have their voices heard), Mario Monti called for referendums on European affairs to be more than just approval or rejection of a specific text, but also to ask the citizens the fundamental question: do you wish to continue to be part of the EU as modified by the texts put forward to you? A potential negative answer would not necessarily have to scupper a project supported by the majority of member states for good; but the one which rejects it would have to accept the consequences of its actions, whilst keeping the rights it has acquired (MEP Gilles Savary has published reflections and suggestions on this subject, to which I will return very soon).
Irony versus pettiness. The conclusions had been entrusted to Etienne Davignon, whose intervention was a veritable firework display of irony (and, on occasion, sarcasm) directed at all those who do not understand European unity. It cannot be summed up. Someone who, as a young man, worked with Paul-Henri Spaak (whose daughter Antoinette also gave an impassioned testimony) and who has played a top-level personal role in making the European project a reality, spoke out against the petty mindedness of those who do not dare to demand the scale and ambitions of the dream of a united Europe and who recommend a mini-Treaty, or who play down its significance. If a project is important, it must be presented as such; and if the government does not manage to secure its approval among its people, it remains only for it to step down. The “Community method” must be kept simply because it has been successful: it put an end to intra-European wars and brought us liberty and well-being. The pragmatism and slogans of the “Europe of results” type are fallacies also; when the objectives are called “safeguarding the earth” and “global balance”, anyone pursuing these is not a pragmatist, but a visionary. The question put was: Quo vadis, Europe? Etienne Davignon's answer was: forwards! (F.R.)