True to his style, Etienne Davignon began his address at the seminar on Altiero Spinelli (see yesterday's column) with a statement that startled his audience. He said: “my first impression of Spinelli was negative. For the diplomatics among us (as we know Viscount Davignon played such a role in favour of European construction), Mr Spinelli was a disconcerting factor. The work of diplomats more often than not consists of making it impossible to see the wood for the trees - otherwise the debate is over before it has begun. Spinelli got in the way of all that”. The Viscount had explained: “Altiero Spinelli's main merit was that he never compromised the goal by using whatever was available at that moment to attain it”. According to Mr Davignon today, the goal of European construction, his final destination, is rarely recalled and this, he believes, is “one of the reasons why the public has distanced themselves”. If the goal is not stated, “citizens find it hard to live with European interference in their private lives. It is necessary to explain the interweaving between the aims and the aspirations that member states on their own can no longer gratify. These two aspects must be reconciled and explained. Altiero Spinelli knew how to do this, despite all opposition”.
On the basis of this premise, Etienne Davignon has a few recipes for today's Europe on:
1. Restoring the balance between aim and achievement. The vocabulary used is often misleading. For example, one should never speak of “transfers of sovereignty” between the member states and Europe. The correct concept is “sharing - never transfer. Sovereignty is never lost”. Let us look at the way things work at the institutional level: - the Commission is autonomous, not making the laws but suggesting them (see Point 3 on its role); - the Council issues from the states but is located within a Community institution being a “common structure for managing shared sovereignty”; - and the European Parliament is designated by the people and acts in their name. But we must not forget that decisions are taken together, in Council/EP codecision, which is an essential concept in full expansion.
2. Democratic deficit? “Democratic deficit was invented by those hostile to Europe - it is a way of maligning an institutional structure which is perfectly respectful of the democratic method”. Mr Davignon regrets that the symbols of the EU have been discarded as “no great adventure can do without its share of fantasy” (but he does acknowledge that substance is more important than appearance and that, in fact, Europeans are becoming increasingly familiar with the flag and anthem of Europe).
3. Essential importance. “The European Commission is today more essential than it was yesterday”. In the six-member EU, everyone knew each other and it was easy to understand each other's reasons and assess where possible compromises lay. Today, with 27 member countries, no member state, however organised, can understand the demands of all the others. Only the Commission can point to balanced solutions in the general European interest.
4. In case of failure. “We must begin to reflect upon what we should do if a member state does not ratify the new treaty”. Is it acceptable for a single country to be able to “take European construction hostage? For a minority to prevent the majority from doing what it wants to do or what it feels is necessary?”
5. Tragedy. The EU must strengthen its presence in the field of education and is encouraged by the success of the Erasmus scheme and Bologna process. According to Etienne Davignon, “what is being taught to the young is nothing short of tragedy! We only ever hear about the Europe of traders and the selfishness of Europe but the EU is the only entity in the world based on solidarity, the most generous and open entity for helping the poorer countries”.
The right of own initiative must remain in the hands of the Commission. It is in this context that the vice-president of the Commission, Franco Frattini, stressed the fundamental importance of having almost a monopoly of the “right of own initiative” conferred upon the Commission by the treaty. Before presenting a proposal, the Commission discusses it with national administrations of member states, including the smallest, in order to take all their reasons into account. It also listens to the opinions of all actors involved in the dossiers concerned as well as consumers, and sometimes consults third countries too. It is thus able to highlight what is in the general interest. Experience proves that, in some areas where member states share the ability to present proposals, initiatives fail as the individual member states are unable to make a synthesis of all the different national interests. It is at this point that we come into line with the comments made by Etienne Davignon.
(F.R.)