Have Poland's and the United Kingdom's problems with the EU become worse following some recent verbal slips? I don't think so. Quite simply, we are speaking more about them. Etienne Davignon has written: “The United Kingdom has obtained opt-outs in certain provisions in the new treaty. It does not prevent the Union from working, but it does highlight the ambiguity of that great country's position. In the long term, will it be able to avoid having to choose between being a member or not?” The question is there for all to see.
The British aim is still to radically alter the EU. From the British side, the position is still more or less the same: the UK is in the EU and intends to stay there, but on its own terms. In London, the accusation of euroscepticism is dismissed. The new prime minister has avoided setting out his position. Commentators, both British and continental, are of one voice: since he became a candidate to succeed Tony Blair, Gordon Brown has said nothing specific about Europe. His theoretical contributions ceased in 2005, when he challenged the need for a political Europe, which had no meaning in his opinion. After that, there has only been silence. In what is considered his inaugural speech as the head of his party (in Manchester in September 2006), Europe wasn't even mentioned. If we accept (as many commentators have) that Ed Balls, secretary of state at the Treasury, was, in practice, speaking on behalf of Gordon Brown, the situation is clear: the United Kingdom is pro-European in principle, because it recognises that cooperation with continental countries is useful and effective; but the EU will have to undergo radical changes. Today the EU is too concerned with building a supranational state, when it should be concentrating on more basic, more useful tasks. Mr Balls has said what he considers to be the priorities: EU spending and budget reform; revision of the Common Agricultural Policy; liberalisation of financial services and so on. Protectionist rhetoric, he feels, can offer only the illusion of protection and security.
The pragmatism of Ed Balls' discourse becomes more qualified and doctrinaire in a text by Denis MacShane, which was aimed at continental readers. This former British minster for European affairs (and it is in this quality that I quote him), far from challenging its success, praised the effectiveness and results of Europe. He spoke enthusiastically of some recent EU successes: the ambitious liberalisation of air traffic with the United States, the reduction in banking costs, lower mobile phone roaming charges. He stressed that “these positive developments have nothing to do with the institutional debate … which threatens to plunge Europe into a maelstrom of further referendums on a major political project, when the real Europe is doing just as well”. Europe did not need a “further period of narcissistic debate on its institutions and its operational rules. … It is only beginning to find its rhythm and regain its confidence, and will find itself once again immersed in interminable and sterile quarrels”.
The Conservative party is even more convinced of this. Overall, and apart from a few brave minorities, it is clear: the UK opposes those who believe it necessary for Europe to have its own identity, to play a political role in the world, to have ethical ambitions.
Poland today does not understand anything about Europe. With Poland, things are radically different. The twins who hold the reins of the country have one single objective: to consolidate national autonomy. One can understand the temptation in a country whose identity has been too often denied or done down in the past, and which only regained its sovereignty in 1989. But to demand autonomy from the EU, which is not threatening it and which, on the contrary, is protecting it, shows that it has understood nothing about European integration. Jean-Claude Juncker has just said (in Le Soir of 2 July) that the Polish leadership was behaving today as if the country were encircled by two enemies: Russia and Germany. Yet, for the countries around it, Germany has become “the best neighbour ever”. In particular, it did everything possible to hasten Poland's accession and to ensure it enjoyed the best possible financial conditions. The way Warsaw has conducted itself “is a negation of European history as it has developed since the end of the war”.
On the specific point which is causing so much agitation in Warsaw, Mr Juncker said, “there has been a huge over-reaction to the issue of the weighting of votes. I have been in the EU Council for 25 years and never in a vote have I seen all the large countries on one side and the pack of small countries on the other. … In every vote, there are one or two big countries with the small and medium-sized countries”. When will Warsaw understand this?
(F.R.)