A unique tone.
Jacques Delors has lost none of his main quality. I refer to the stimulating
effect of his words when he speaks of Europe. He may be discontented,
disappointed even, with various current developments in European construction,
but none of this matters: even his reservations or criticisms have this tone,
which is his alone, and which gives hope and confidence. Those lucky enough to
have heard him over two days in Brussels last week will bear me out: even the
most sceptical and cynical feel more confident in the future of Europe for
hearing him speak, and get at least some of their lost impetus back. How far he
is from those I call the “embittered people of Europe”, who, seeing European
unity going in a direction which does not fully correspond to the dreams of
their youth, become bitter and aggressive!
Jacques Delors couldn't be
less like this. Of course he doesn't like everything about today's Europe. He
still rues the fact that the Lisbon Summit of 26 and
A world power. Jacques
Delors is disappointed in the attitude of those who have become sceptical about
European construction because it no longer corresponds entirely to their own
vision. The sincerity of the commitment, they feel, is proved by sticking to
your guns. Does the Constitution bring with it any elements of progress? Yes.
Then it must be supported, despite its shortcomings and the risks that it might
slide towards the intergovernmental method for essential fields such as the
Economic and Monetary Union (the imbalance between both planks subsists and the
economic plank is in the grasp of an intergovernmental body) and, in
perspective, external relations. The future European Foreign Minister will, as
we know, be a vice-president of the Commission. Will he or she have the
Community reflex, or a leaning towards intergovernmental structures, even in
fields where the Commission has well-defined powers? Jacques Delors regrets
that there is a distinction between Europe as a power and Europe as an area,
because the current EU is already far more than just an area for the free
movement of goods, capital and people. With its common policies, its
decision-making powers in the field of mergers (even for third-country
enterprises) and its capacities to negotiate on a global scale all issues
related to trade, development aid, the environment and so on, the EU is
already a world power of the first order. Jacques Delors does not,
therefore, believe in the creation of two Europes, but in the application of
the principle of “differentiation”, whereby any given Member State can opt
out of certain achievements (as is the case today with the single currency).
Differentiation is not a word to inflame hearts and minds. But not everything
can be done by all 25 (soon to be 27, then 30 or more).
And Jacques Delors remains faithful to his own view: three major objectives
which apply to all (and which add up to far more than just Europe as an area:
see this column of 24 September), plus additional achievements, which are open
to those which want to take part in them.
How can I condense
everything Jacques Delors said and explained into this one little page? I
propose to come back to some more of his main points at a later date. (F.R.)
Bulletin
quotidien Agence Europe N°8905-
Solidarity, the essential
concept. Jacques Delors does not approve of the “embittered of Europe” who,
for example, oppose the Constitution because it does not correspond entirely to
their expectations (see this column of yesterday), but this does not mean that
he is inclined to accept just anything. There are compromises which are
accepted to avoid impasses, but there are unacceptable things which, if
allowed, would disfigure Europe. The example he emphasised during his sojourn
in Brussels last week was economic and social cohesion. This concept,
introduced among the objectives of Europe by a Summit
vote (“to the disgust of the lawyers”), implies solidarity above all things.
Solidarity is one of the basic principles without which the Union would not be
what it is today. The former President of the Commission is very firm on this
point: solidarity is not encapsulated by a transfer of resources from
the richest countries to the less favoured ones; the EU is not a bank. Jacques
Delors wrote in his Memoirs that “structural policies represent the essential
counterpart to the single market, economic and
social cohesion is one of the pillars of European construction”. His view on
this has not changed.
Structural policies are
essential, particularly in making the importance and significance of Europe
comprehensible to every citizen at regional and local level. It is on
the ground, seeing a certain project being realised right in front of them with
support from Community funding that citizens see Europe in action. It is from that
standpoint that the pluri-annual “financial perspectives” take on all their
significance. It is not only a question of money, but also of image, of
comprehension. Europe must be visible. It has ever increasing impact on the
lives of everyone, but because of a lack of explanations and transparency, “it
worries more than it reassures, it bores more than it fascinates”. On the
new financial perspectives
Institutional
responsibilities. The second thing which Jacques Delors emphasised
tirelessly was the “Community method”. If the institutional triangle
Parliament-Council- Commission takes on its responsibilities, Europe can
progress, gain transparency, find the paths of democratic responsibility and
make itself understood by its citizens. If the triangle gets bogged down, if
the Commission does not have all of its rights and duties recognised, if the
“General Affairs” Council does not resume its arbitration and synthesis role,
if the Summits are not appropriately prepared by submitting a limited number of
points to the heads of state and government in documents of two pages (instead
of hundreds of pages which they do not read), the European Council will be
moving further away from its mission of deciding the broad guidelines for
Europe and will be trying to do everything. As for the European Parliament,
it should ensure that it maintains its positive approach to European
construction: when 80% of a political group are in favour of a Commission idea
or a draft resolution, they should not vote against it on account of the 20%
who do not agree.
The Member States
must understand that there is no point in reproaching Europe for failing to
do what they should be doing themselves. It is not the mythical “social
Europe” which will be able to redress the social security deficit in one
country or resolve pension problems in another. Some Member States, such as
Sweden, Denmark and to some extent the UK, have done what needed to be done
while still maintaining their social-democratic ethos; they have proved that it
is possible. Some national political parties who make a lot of noise cannot
claim to be able to impose their policies on Europe when they cannot even make
them acceptable at home.
Some other points. Anything
else? Here are a few choice points made in passing: a) Jacques Delors does
not believe that Germany is on the path to decline; the reforms undertaken
and export results indicate the contrary; b) the Economic and Monetary Union does
not automatically lead to political Union. These are two separate
processes; c) Jacques Delors considers that Summit follow-ups to the famous
white paper of 1993 to be a failure, even though its importance has been
widely recognised and even today the document is cited as a guiding light for
the development of some aspects of the Union (it launched the trans-European
networks and proposed that they be part-financed by European borrowing). “The
heads of government did not really want it, we have wasted seven years”, he
now says.
(F.R.)