A Europe of three circles

A “Europe of variable geometry” to “overcome the constitutional impasse”: that’s the “recipe” of Father PIERRE DE CHARENTENAY , editor in chief of Études, the Jesuit review of culture in France. A year after the rejection of the European Constitution by France and Holland, “there still does not exist any agreement, not even a systematic public debate” on the question, points out de Charentenay in the May number of the periodical. Amid the diverging positions of various countries, a consensus still seems very remote and this, according to the Jesuit, demonstrates the “end of the model of a Europe shared by everyone in a uniform way” and expresses the need for “a more complex and dynamic model”, in short a model “with a variable geometry”. A VANGUARD. “What’s the way out for a European Union that will soon have 35 members? How should it be organized?” asks de Charentenay, convinced that the time has come to “revive the idea of a vanguard”. “With so large a number of member countries and ever greater diversity – he explains – Europe cannot proceed along a single path, unless it be by creating a vanguard formed of a restricted group of countries that share and foster the same aspirations. The others will follow, including the British”. In the view of the Jesuit, therefore, “we need to renounce the idea of a Europe in which all member states go forward in tandem, sharing the same institutions and the same projects”. This “is not an easy conversion to make, since in the spirit of the founding fathers the idea of a federation aspired to a system in which all the members would be equal and share the same rights and duties”. That was an ideal, “but – continues the journalist – the uncontrolled geographic and numerical growth of Europe makes it impossible. In some sense, the stalemate of the Constitution represents the end of this dream of a homogeneous Community, a commendable and justified but, alas, unrealisable dream”. VARIABLE GEOMETRY. So a new configuration is needed: a Europe “of variable geography” which de Charentenay imagines resting on three circles. The first of these circles includes the current EU: “the historic Fifteen together with the Ten added to them in 2004”; a sum of countries able to “maintain the characteristics of the Union without increasing the political links that tie them together and without closer institutional ties; a group able to pursue industrial and economic projects together and secure the development of the areas in difficulty through European aid”. But “within this basic circle – suggests de Charentenay – a smaller inner circle could develop. It would be the advance guard that Europe needs”, and “the euro zone could become the centre of this vanguard”. In the view of the Jesuit, “if this zone of twelve members, already closely linked together, were to assume a more marked identity, it would have a real possibility of development”. “The European battle is especially being fought in the euro zone”, and it is on this basis that possible progress in integration is possible, such as “the tax harmonization indispensable for the economic coherence of Europe as a whole”, “a common social policy that would reduce too marked differences”, and “the rejection of non-collaborative national policies”. REINFORCED COOPERATION. Research and defence could also be included among common policies, to be implemented “in the framework of the reinforced cooperation called for by the Constitution”. De Charentenay, in other words, says he is convinced that “this zone could become the driving force of a collective action able to promote integration”. “But if this small inner circle is to assume consistency – he warns – it is essential that countries like France, Germany, Italy and Spain work together”. The aim would be not to give rise to a kind of directoire , or inner ruling circle, but “to reinforced cooperation, which is vital for the dynamic of the euro zone”. A third circle, “larger than the basic circle – continues the Jesuit -, could include the current candidate countries, in the form of privileged partnerships that could in future be transformed into membership. All its members ought to share the fundamental democratic principles, as enunciated in the draft Constitution, and pledge to work for internal and external peace”. This is a project in which – according to de Charentenay – “economic partnerships could also assume a role”. “This Europe of variable geometry – he concludes – is not another way of dividing the continent”, but “a formula to make it more flexible, with a view to overcoming the constitutional impasse” that was created by the crisis in May 2005 and that Europe needs to overcome, “since the objective remains the gradual construction of a European people transcending historical subdivisions into separate and opposing nations”.