The way to get the EU out of the situation created by the result of the Irish referendum continues to be the subject of various analyses and stances. Before I summarise the developments of the last week, tomorrow, I feel it may be useful to report the views of two of the most influential people in Europe.
"Differentiation" is a reality. Jacques Delors dislikes the definition two-speed Europe, but he takes the view that differentiation is sometimes inevitable. And in any case, it already exists: "on Schengen and on the economic and monetary union, we have practised what I call differentiation. The euro would not exist if we had had to wait for the agreement of all 15 countries which then made up the Union". On this point, therefore, he disagrees with Angela Merkel, even though he said that he understood "her political strategy, which is due to Germany's central position in the new Europe". Mr Delors clarified: "can one country alone, irrespective of its size, oppose progress in European integration?". This fundamental question has, he feels, already been answered: "in 1985, would we have started the Schengen process (free movement of people without border controls) if we had had to wait for the agreement of all? The decision was taken by five countries out of nine, and the others followed, with the exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Would the euro have been born in 1991 if we had needed everybody's agreement? 11 countries out of 15 were in favour and fulfilled the conditions. Saying that is not threatening the Irish, it is reiterating the conditions of efficiency. What was true when there were 9 or 15 of us is even more true now that we are 27",
In favour of a European energy community. Against this backdrop of differentiation, Jacques Delors repeated his suggestion of "creating a European energy community. This would give us an internal energy policy, a competitive market and a common attitude towards the produces countries. When I see this carousel of Member States revolving around Putin and Medvedev, I feel scandalised: Europe is making itself look ridiculous. We must, as a matter of urgency, build a Europe of energy, to be made up of such countries as wish to join it. The others will follow later, as with the euro".
Jacques Delors also spoke out against this habit of "damning Brussels as the cause of all evil. You might almost say a horror film. Something amiss? Brussels' fault (...). In fact the decisions which count are taken by the Council of Ministers, and therefore by the governments". Not forgetting the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon increases the competencies of the European Parliament.
VGE's three points. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former president of the Convention which produced the draft constitutional Treaty (subsequently replaced by the Treaty of Lisbon), opened his comments with a remark which may, on first sight, appear surprising, stressing a positive consequence of the Irish vote: the removal of the hasty timetable for the nominations of the presidents of the European Council, the President of the Commission and the High Representative for foreign policy: "Everything was to have been decided in autumn 2008, without debate and without democratic consultation. A panel of leaders would have emerged from a confessional arrangement. At least things can now be done in the right order".
He reiterated his reservations regarding referendums for complex texts: "speaking to a group of graduating students, I asked all those who had read the treaty to raise a hand: only one did, out of 500. This text was not accessible. How, then, can we ask the citizens to vote on it?". As for the need to reassure the populations on respect for national identities, his approach is radical: "Europe should deal with those subjects for which each of our countries are too small on their own: International trade, currency, competition, major environmental problems, defence of the continent. As for the rest, no. And it needs a guardian: this will be the President of the European Council, who will sideline all issues which are outside the competencies of the EU. This is essential".
What is to be done in the immediate future? The Irish may vote again in February or March 2009: "it is up to the Irish government to choose (...). The Irish are worried pro-Europeans: they need reassuring rather than threatening". They may vote yes, "knowing that at the same time, the other Member States will adopt a Convention giving Ireland the status of exception, if this is what the Irish want".
Basically, on one vital aspect, the views of Jacques Delors and VGE are reasonably close: whatever name is chosen, a differentiation between the Member States appears to them unavoidable, in one form or another.
Tomorrow, this column will take stock of developments in the capitals.
(F.R./trans. fl)