A week has gone by and our readers now have the full text of the speech by Lionel Jospin. Meanwhile, I have taken note of a number of reactions and comments. I should like to make the following observations.

1. The concept of a "federation of nation-states". This concept comprises two elements and there is no reason to ignore either of the two. And yet, this is what we are seeing: some fix on the word "federation", voicing opposition to this concept, while others place the emphasis on "nation-states", accusing Lionel Jospin of having intergovernmental tendencies. But it is important to keep in mind that the concept originated with Jacques Delors, who developed it after lengthy reflection, with the goal of reconciling the idea of federation (the very word used to be held up to ridicule in some Member States and still is) with protection of the national characteristics of each of our countries: culture, traditions and language. This concept was rejected for years: it was even criticized as being hard to translate. But it has come a long way and is now being endorsed by a Head of Government (in France) after being validated by a Foreign Minister (in Germany). It is ridiculous to distort its meaning through maximalism or out of a displaced taste for controversy.

2. The "Community method". In the federation of nation-states, the important thing is to protect the Community method, namely a governance (a word that is here to stay in European parlance) based on the institutional triangle of Commission/Council/Parliament, while respecting the prerogatives of each institution and the balance of the whole. On this fundamental aspect, Lionel Jospin's speech leaves us a bit perplexed, notably concerning the European Parliament, for which his enthusiasm seems quite moderate. Moreover, each Head of Government who has already reacted has voiced a preference for strengthening the role of one institution or another: Chancellor Schröder and Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstadt for the Commission, Lionel Jospin for the Council, Tony Blair for the European Council, Gerhard Schröder again for Parliament (with a second chamber composed of representatives of Member States). At the same time, President Prodi has confirmed the Commission's demands concerning the "European economic government " and the role of the CFSP High Representative. Everything is open to discussion, but the balance existing among the three sides of the triangle is a vital element for safeguarding the Community method.

3. Goals and ambitions. Mr Jospin (along with Mr Prodi, Mrs Lindh, etc.) laid emphasis on giving priority to the Union's objectives rather than institutional mechanisms. Europe is first and foremost a work of the intellect, a model of society, a vision of the world, said Lionel Jospin. Rhetoric? Yes, if one goes no further than statements of principle. No, if such statements are matched with operational proposals and solutions. This is precisely the case of the speech that concerns us. Unfortunately, certain reactions have focused on the institutional aspects alone. Mr Jospin called for a European economic government, measures to combat social dumping, a directive on public services, a common scientific area, "European consumer" status and a world environmental authority. That's quite an order! Debate should concern these orientations (of interest to all citizens) as much as the working of the institutions.

4. The institutions. In the institutional sphere, Lionel Jospin's words must be taken literally and the positive elements therein retained. For example: he supports "a gradual and controlled initiative for the sharing or transfer of powers to Union level"; " clarification [of the Treaties] must not call shared powers into question"; "the pre-eminence of European law, sanctioned by the Court of Justice"; "rejecting the re-nationalisation of policies defined and pursued to date at Union level"; "guaranteeing the European general interest is the role of the European Commission". The rest, the detailed working of the institutions, the creation of a "congress" of national Parliaments, etc., can be debated, because Mr Jospin himself observed: "other proposals have been or will be made. At the conclusion of the process, we will have to work out a compromise acceptable to all."

Excessive reactions are inappropriate. Stating that the possibility for the Council to dissolve the EP is tantamount to making this assembly the "hostage of governments" (Monica Frassoni) is a heated response characteristic of a (not unwelcome) youthful enthusiasm, but also of a lack of reflection. If a Parliament is entitled to bring down an Executive, the normal counterpart is that the former can be dissolved in certain specific cases (if, for instance, the EP should throw the Commission out of office twice in a matter of months). This is a balance that exists in almost all great democracies. Dissolving Parliament is not a coup d'etat, it very simply means appealing to the people in the event of a conflict. (F.R.)