The right answers. Neither the shouts of outrage nor walking out of the chamber was, in my opinion, the best reaction to the Eurosceptic speech delivered in Brussels last week by Czech President Vaclav Klaus (see our newsletter N° 9844), and this for three reasons. Firstly, like every European Union citizen, he has the right to set out his ideas freely. Secondly, he had the political courage to present them at the European Parliament, fully aware that the welcome he would receive would not be, how can one put it, warm. And thirdly, the Eurosceptics exist, so it is as well to understand their arguments and prepare good answers - something that wasn't done in France and certainly not in Ireland in the run ups to the two well known referendums that delivered “No” votes.
Bizarre state of affairs. In the Czech system, the president does not hold any executive power. It is for the government and the national parliament, and so, ultimately, for the people, to decide. This they will do soon. We have to realise that, in a 27-member, and soon to become even bigger, Europe, there will increasingly be times when some member state does not agree about a particular project. Community procedures are there to allow discussion. However, if a project has been the subject of long joint discussion, if it is the result of compromises that take account of the various positions, if all member states have agreed to it and if the countries which feel it is necessary form an overwhelming majority, the EU cannot allow to continue ad nauseam the current bizarre state of affairs of trying to persuade the unwilling member to vote a second time, granting it concessions to get agreement, and revising the agreed project for all just because it does not please one.
This is not about expelling anyone, but about letting those which want to progress do so, while leaving the door open to others. This is the way the last two major steps forward in building Europe were made: creating the Schengen area (which, incidentally, was brought into being on the sidelines of Community procedures) and the euro area. If a country prefers to leave the EU, the exit door will always be open; each is free to choose other forms of cooperation, which may, indeed, be close and effective. This is the way for Norway and Switzerland; it has long been the case for Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries. But the time for pleas and special concessions is past; European integration can never progress if, every time, the position of the least willing is adopted.
Getting rid of ambiguity. In the case of the Czech president, one piece of ambivalence has to be removed. Mr Klaus' statement that he is not against European integration but against some of its arrangements is not to be taken to the letter. This is the position held by all Eurosceptics. It was the British position half a century ago, when London wanted a European free trade area. Indeed this area existed, with Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, until they all asked to join the EU. Mr Klaus says he supports European unity. Who today would reject cooperation, the market without borders, or the end of wars? Mr Klaus is against deeper integration and transferring other decision-making powers to Europe. His country has just come through a very instructive experience. Allow me to set it out briefly.
Instructive experience. As they reacted to Nicolas Sarkozy's criticism of the relocation of French car firms, the Czech authorities realised that the only weapon in their armoury was to call on Community rules and EU supra-national institutions, and these latter immediately responded. This is not a specifically Czech problem: what can any small or medium-sized member state on its own do against a decision by a large country to block relocation or to grant discriminatory aid? The short answer is, “Nothing” - unless there are Community rules and procedures and institutions able to ensure everyone complies with them. It is the same for the single currency: it is wholly contradictory to consider accession to the euro area while, at the same time, rejecting supra-national powers. A currency has to be managed on a day-to-day basis by supra-national bodies of which the central banks of the euro area countries form part, but which are quite independent and whose decisions are binding.
Legitimate influence. The above remarks, in no way, affect the legitimate desire to influence Community policy development. It is by improving the way the EU works and by strengthening the institutions, just as is provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, that this becomes possible. Citizens will soon be called on to vote to elect members of the European Parliament. Through their vote, they will also be involved in defining the way Europe will go in the future. If a country wants to remain on the sidelines, it can do so, but it has to accept the consequences of its choice and acknowledge the right of those who hold a different opinion to take action. (F.R./transl.rt)