The first part of the article focuses on the ruling by the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe and the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the German Constitution. Mr Delors points out that this decision affirms that any new transfer of sovereignty to the European Union in domains within the “reserved perimeter”, will require an amendment to the national Constitution and be subject to a referendum. This reserved perimeter consists of a fairly long list of domains. The Court's decision also adds that “the national constitutional judge remains the ultimate guardian and can, in certain cases, oppose the European Court of Justice. Jacques Delors comments: “The precedence of European law, recognised by other member states, could subsequently be brought into question…”
Without claiming to “close the quarrel regarding interpretation of the ruling”, Delors affirms that it “illustrates the misgivings harboured by many Germans about continuing along the path, mapped out by the founding fathers, of political integration in Europe”. He adds, however, that “rather than a decline in the feeling of Germans towards the Union, is not this ruling more of a reflection of the general atmosphere in all European countries?”
The main part of the article looks at Germany's position on essential aspects of European construction. The text is as follows:
“Events affecting the draft European Convention and those that followed with the Lisbon Treaty, illustrate the difficulties involved in moving forward beyond the high flown declarations of our leaders. One has to take care not to fall into the trap of scapegoating Germany, a country of which much is asked. Not without reason. There are some who regard Germany as becoming increasingly selfish and therefore, less European. Once again, a lot of care is required when founding one's arguments. I do not at all share the opinion that Germany is carrying out an egotistical economic policy consisting of wage dumping and stimulating its own exports. It remains, it is true, perfectly in tune with its Ordnungspolitik and prioritises monetary stability and the social market economy. Has it not just done exactly that by including in its Constitution, limits of 0.35% of GDP in 2016 on the federal budget and a ban on the Länder (regions) from getting into debt?
Over the last ten years, it is true that Germany has practised wage restraint, contained spending, reformed its labour markets and increased its export power. But can we, in the name of European commitment, demand the Germans to commit the same stupidities as their neighbours? Each individual country is responsible for its own housekeeping. It is also a subject of concern with regard to the future because if divergences increase within Economic and Monetary Union, it would be dangerous because it is the cornerstone of European integration. The missing link in this Union remains, as I have repeatedly said for twenty years, the total absence of any real coordination in national macroeconomic policies, but, “on this subject, there is an allergic reaction that it isn't just German, it's more generalised than that”.
On the other hand, I do see other worrying signs in Germany's positions. I will only mention three of them. First of all, the refusal to increase the Union's budgetary resources, when this only involves common policies and action in research, infrastructure and energy, without forgetting our duties to developing countries. This was already the line put forward under the Chirac-Schröder partnership. The same opposition exists to the idea of a European loan for tackling the crisis. Germany is also opposed to creating an energy community. This would, however, enable us to strengthen our position on the basis of an extended internal energy market, ensure our supplies and, to this end, have a single strategy towards oil and gas producing countries, particularly Russia, which, until now, each country has been trying to woo. This is a victory for “each for himself” and short-sightedness.
Finally, how can we but not highlight the Chancellor's refusal to contemplate strengthened cooperation, a process that allows certain countries to go forward, while leaving the door open to the others. If we had to obtain the unanimous agreement of member states where would we be today with the free movement of persons (Schengen) and the Euro?
There are obviously other causes too for the European malaise. Germany is however, due to its political and economic weight, at the very heart of the debate”.
Text published in No.180 of “Challenge”, published by the “Nouvel Observateur” group and republished with the authorisation of Jacques Delors and “Challenge”. (Transl.rh)