Europe has to prepare itself for the possibility of the new European treaty not being ratified by all member states, and plan for a ceremonial in the event of the treaty being thrown into the “rubbish bin of history” or in gentler terms, shoved back into the archives, which are already more than full with aborted projects (see this column yesterday). But even if there is unanimous ratification and an entry into force of the new treaty at the beginning of 2009, the question of future European integration will be posed in a different way. The problem will be one of how to actually use the potential of the new treaty, including the strengthened cooperation instrument for activities that don't obtain unanimous support, activities that are expected to be put into practice with just partial support from member states. This is a controversial issue but I do, however, believe that some of the high drama surrounding it would disappear if we rid ourselves of some of the prejudices and took into account the situation that already existed.
“Differentiation” is already a reality. The idea that within the European Union not all member states take part in the same projects and do not apply the same rules, continues to disturb some governments, which associate it with the concept of a two-speed Europe imposed from on high. This is a false impression;, in fact no member state is being put on the sidelines. They can all participate (and must have the future possibility of doing so), and rejoin the group of most advanced countries: the case of the euro and the Schengen area, with their gradual expansion, proves this. The “differentiation” objective is not to voluntarily sideline any country but to enable those that want to participate in a project to do so on their own without blocking the others.
Commenting on the new treaty, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing pointed out: “Great Britain enjoys a particular status: it has an exceptional status on monetary union; it does not apply the Schengen agreement; it is not bound by the constraints of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (similarly to Ireland and Poland); and it still has its freedom of evaluation in certain legal matters”. Each case is an example of self-exclusion. The same remark applies to the absence of Scandinavian countries that have certain provisions on Common Foreign and Security Policy.
On the other hand, member states from the last generation are now gradually joining the eurozone and the Schengen area. Differentiation is voluntary or temporary. This is why it was possible to open new areas of European construction even if some member states are still not meeting the conditions for participating in it.
Two examples plus one. If monetary union had had to wait for all member states to be ready, the euro would still not exist. The Schengen area had even been created on the margins of the treaty by a small number of member states. In addition to these observations is another forgotten, but politically significant, initiative: in spring 2006, the commissioner for taxation, László Kovàcs, faced with certain countries' misgivings about defining a uniform tax band for corporation tax, called on member states to give their ideas on the “feasibility technique” for harmonisation in which only those countries wanting to would participate. If there proved to be a sufficient number of them (which was indeed the case), the Commission would launch a strengthened cooperation, in the view that it was an indispensable measure for the eurozone, while emphasising that a common tax band did not mean uniform or minimum rates (see this section in EUROPE 9174). In the new treaty, nine member states will be sufficient for activating this “cooperation”. Coherency in the eurozone would be strengthened as a result and differentiation would develop at the same time between member states. Why should we be frightened about it?
The problem is above all political and psychological. Member states that most recently joined have to be convinced that the objective is in no way one of leaving out a group of countries. Soon, accession dates will have no meaning and will have been totally forgotten (they are already, partly). The only distinction will be between member states that choose integration and those that prefer cooperation. The eurozone indicates the way ahead if economic and budgetary coordination develops.
(F.R.)