Following his introductory remarks before the French Senate's Delegation for the European Union and Committee on Foreign Affairs (see yesterday's EUROPE, pp. 3-5), Jacques Delors answered questions from Senators. We reproduce his responses below.
II. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS
"It is true that the European Parliament is still looking for its style. In the past, it has acted in a way reminiscent of national parliaments during the transition from a monarchy to democracy, tearing off scraps of power through its budgetary competences. Today, it is trying to increase its power of control over the Commission, which, we must bear in mind, is only one of the Union's two executives. The Prodi Commission has a handicap: it has had to make concessions. But it cannot continue indefinitely in this direction.
The European Parliament is undergoing internal changes: relations between the two main groups are not what they used to be and the European People's Party Group is more heterogeneous today. The tranquillity guaranteed by the joint control of the two biggest groups has been lost and there is now a tendency to try to outdo one's rivals. I believe the idea of individual sanctions against Commissioners by Parliament must absolutely be rejected: this would represent the end of the collective nature of the Commission. The question of the right to dissolve Parliament has been raised: were we to move in this direction, this right should be given to the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission. This measure would restore balance.
You have emphasised certain tendencies by the Committee on Budgetary Control. I believe there is new awareness on this subject today. This committee alone must not personify the style of the European Parliament. Generally speaking, the framework agreement being considered between Parliament and the Commission must not go too far. For example, why should the Commission consult Parliament before taking an initiative and not the Council? It must be at the service of the Council even if it has its own powers and its own responsibilities.
The Commission must be first and foremost a collective body and problems must be discussed by Commissioners and not by civil servants. Experience demonstrates that, when the Commission holds a candid discussion among its Members, it comes out more unified. It must be useful to governments: if they cannot come to agreement and the Commission manages to find a common ground, then it is naturally playing its role as the engine of Europe.
The institutional shift reflected in the new role of the European Council was discussed. What I fear most of all is that the European Council may become a sort of G8: if it cuts itself off from the institutional triangle, which must prepare and provide follow-up of its work, it will evolve towards simply pronouncing incantations.
And so we come to the open avant-garde I recommend. I do not intend to give it illusory objectives. I was opposed to the political part of the Treaty of Maastricht, because we could not respect the commitments we seemed to be making. I am mistrustful of announcements for the sake of making an impact.
I was never in favour of the creation of the CFSP High Representative. When the President of France goes to China, he has the entire diplomatic corps behind him. For the Union, interventions will be made by the President-in-Office, Mr CFSP, the relevant Commissioner and perhaps even the President of the ECB... If the French fascination with institutional constructions were not so great, we would have charged two Vice-Presidents, one responsible for Foreign Affairs and the other for Economic and Monetary Union, with accompanying the President-in-Office of the Council. This said however, Mr Javier Solana, who is a man of experience, is in the process of defining his role and is doing it very well. He lacks a real analytical instrument and I fear mostly that rivalry may undermine his action.
On defence, we have tried for years, without success, to adopt a text on dual-use goods, so as to establish a common framework. Industry has anticipated this movement and mergers and concentrations are on the rise. We are indeed very close to having a European defence industry. But the Franco-British initiative skirts this question.
A few words on Citizens' Europe. I am dubious when Europe wants to deal with beaches and bathing water. And it is in the name of Citizens' Europe that it does so. I attach importance to the principle of subsidiarity, which goes beyond the problem of the division of powers. It is not merely a principle of administrative or political technique, but the expression of a certain conception of the individual, of individual freedom, of the responsibility of grass-roots groups. Society would work better if citizens had the feeling they control local affairs, matters close to them, the feeling that they have concrete liberties. I proposed at the Edinburgh European Council the abolition of 15 proposals for directives, but the governments, which speak about transparency and subsidiarity, were reluctant. Great Britain, for instance, absolutely wanted European rules on the transport of animals. I quoted from the text: it required, for example, a specific number of square metres for every pig and another pig in sight to prevent stress. Mr Kohl's laughter caused the walls to tremble. And yet, the text was maintained. Citizens' Europe has been achieved instead by regional policies, where Europe contributes the supplemental financing often lacking for a project.
Concerning aid to the CEECs, we have done a great deal and they remain frustrated, feeling more indebted to the Americans than to us. Their feeling is that, so far, Europe has not done much for them.
With regard to Austria, the Commission's responsibilities have to be precisely spelled out. As long as Austria does not come under Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty, the Commission cannot refuse to work with it. There is a Treaty provision and I do not think we need to go any further.
On the reforms that must precede enlargement, I would like to recall that the IGC is not responsible for everything. Reform of the Council's working methods, the reorganisation of the Commission, the legislative deflation that could be assured by the Ministers for European Affairs, none of these require Treaty changes. But should the outcome of the IGC clearly be short of our expectations, I would prefer, for my part, to see its result rejected rather than to resign myself to it so as to have a Treaty of Nice at all costs. We must resist the myth of the "outstanding" Presidency. Continuity is more important.
On the subject of Mediterranean policy, I believe that its shortcomings derive partly from the failure of the Union of the Maghreb Arab countries and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The MEDA programme can be useful if we act cautiously and humbly: priority must be for the development of cooperation between these countries themselves. Without such an orientation, we will continually be asked to make new concessions. I might add in passing that I regret that our companies do not have a stronger presence in Morocco and Tunisia.
Concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights, President Herzog is obliged to address the content separately from the statute, since the latter is not within the Convention's mandate. On social rights, I would like to be clear. Europe has social action with its structural policies. It is real progress when Portugal's GDP rises from 51% to 78% of the Community average per inhabitant. There are social rights that it is useful to recognise at European level, such as gender equality. There is European collective bargaining and this is important. But the question I would like to raise is the following: Must we put social rights into the Charter that would then become the competence of the Union? If we are talking about laying down broad principles, I agree, but if we are going to create a legal basis for legislating at European level, I am opposed. We are experiencing a democratic malaise, a need for anchoring, for values. I believe that areas like education, health, employment and social security, in short everything that creates social cohesion, must remain national competences. We can establish common guidelines, instruments for gradual harmonisation and experience sharing, but social and national cohesion are not the Union's sole responsibility.
As I have said, I favour a European economic government. The European Central Bank exists and there needs to be an economic power to maintain balance.
Multilateral surveillance in its present form is not enough. Public expenditure has to be considered globally, and especially the quality of this spending. I prefer a country with a 2.5% deficit that is investing in the future to a country with a 1% deficit that is not investing. In this connection, I regret that the problem of the European networks was neglected in Lisbon. I believe Europe must be based on a triptych: competition, cooperation and solidarity. Cooperation is too often relegated to the background.
As for reform of the rules on European elections, I am opposed. The English Members of the EP, anchored to a territory, are more active than the French.
I would have liked for the European Parliament to be made up of 50% representatives of national parliaments. But there is no going back. Today we must develop relations between national MPs and Members of the European Parliament, allowing joint deliberation on subjects of common interest. Better respect for the hierarchy of legislation, a return to the original spirit of directives, a reduction in the number of texts would favour balanced cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments.
On the Balkans, I would favour a light ECSC-type structure, charged with development of trade within this region. Without the experience of working together nothing will be possible.