THE VIRTUES OF PUBLIC DEBATE

by John Palmer

(The Bulletin, September 15, 1994)

The German Christian Democrat parliamentary group should be congratulated for publishing its paper, "The Future of European Unification." The furore created by some of its proposals - notably the possibility that some European Union states might move ahead to a closer integration faster than others - was predictable.

Neither the authors of this report nor others preparing their own contributions to this debate should be deterred by the hypocritical chorus insisting that now is not the time for a public discussion of these questions. The lesson from Maastricht, it seems, still has not been learned by those who want to restrict public debate about European integration.

Although formal preparation for the 1996 Maastricht review conference will not begin until next summer, the lead up time for public debate is necessarily very much longer. The next step should be for the European Parliament to begin planning public hearings on the questions raised in all the (probably) 16 EU member states.

Attention to the German paper has focused mainly on the possible emergence of a core of countries committed to full union. The real point is whether member states who wish to move further and faster to the goals of union that were identified in both the Rome and Maastricht treaties should have the right to do so.

If some member states have the right to "opt out" of certain basic commitments - such as monetary union or policy on social standards - why should others not have the right to "opt in" or " opt up" for closer integration? The nub of the issue is whether the 1996 conference can agree that in such cases, decisions can be taken by a majority and not be subject to a single national veto.

The CDU/CSU document made it clear that any move to closer union should be open to all member states. This openness should discredit the ludicrous scare stories about a Franco/German plot to set up an elite "directorate" to determine the direction to be taken by the European Union.

The German paper is far from perfect. It was downright stupid for the authors to suggest that they knew in advance who the likely members of any eventual "hard core" would be. This has caused needless offence to some countries which have every intention of being part of any fast track or hard core which does develop.

A case in point is Ireland. The Irish economy looks in a rather better state than Belgium's to meet the Maastricht treaty criteria for moving to the third stage of economic and monetary union. The Irish also now appear willing to consider participating in any future European defence union that may emerge not only as a result of the Maastricht review in 1996 but of changes in the relationship between the Western European Union (WEU) and Nato.

The response of the British government to all of this has been one of extraordinary confusion. On the one hand John Major has used the German paper as a reason to sound off once more about the dangers of any drift to greater "federalism" and of a splitting of the EU into rival groups.

On the other hand the British prime minister has lauded the notion of a multi-tier or even multi-speed union. The signs are that Britain is intent on fully participating in any de facto defence union and is also doing all it can to be in a position to join a single currency later in the decade. As always, the British Tories want it both ways: appeasing their Euro-phobic right wing with baseless attacks on federalism and the European Parliament while actually planning to join any future fast track or hard core.

Many questions remain to be answered by the CDU and by French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur. What precise commitments would be involved for a country to be part of an "inner circle" or a hard core of the union? How is the integrity of the Union's institutions (the Commission, the Parliament, the Court and so on) to be safeguarded if the EU does allow differing speeds of advancement?

The encouraging thing is that the debate has started in earnest. It is now impossible for "behind closed doors" fixers to try and repeat the Maastricht operation which left the public angry and confused. The economic signs are also looking more hopeful. It may well be that the crucial decision on a single currency will be taken in parallel with or shortly after the conclusion of the Maastricht review conference.

John PALMER