“European construction is in danger”! This was Mr Jacques Delors’ assessment of the situation in the European Community today. He made this revelation when he spoke to the “Temoin” Club of Lorient on 29 August 1993, on the theme: Our Europe in the Planet – Village between Survival and Decline.

Such a statement may not have been given much credence had it been said by a lowly official of the European Community. However, to be uttered by the President of the European Commission itself, is a testimony of the gravity of the situation that is currently prevailing in the Community today.

Mr Delors’ pessimism is certainly not groundless, judging by the feverish activities and the controversial debates that are raging at various levels in the Community. Mr Delors said to the “Temoin” Club that “if we continue as we are doing now, there will be no convergence of economic policies and, consequently, there will be no single currency“. He added that “there is peril lurking” and “if we do not pull ourselves together, we are going to lose the match“. What is important here is what he didn’t say, but which was clearly understood by his audience. And that was the fact that, inter alia, the slow ratification of the Maastricht Treaty by the Danes and by the British has rocked Community solidarity, and raised the question of their respective commitment to the concept of European union. The case of Germany, whose Parliament has approved the Treaty but is awaiting the decision of the country’s High Court before it ratifies it, is obviously fuelling the doubt that must be creeping in, and certainly not helping the current situation at all. What would have been prominent in his mind also was the nagging questioning, and sometimes rejection by Member States, of policy directives and instruments that emanate from the European Commission. This has led some national leaders to say that they do not wish their economic, social and political life, or a substantial part of it, to be regulated and controlled from Brussels by the Eurocrats there.

On monetary union, one of the main planks of European Union and a logical follow-on to the creation of the European Single Market, Mr Delors would have been viewing the operation of the European Monetary System (EMS) with increasing consternation and concern. Especially significant is the inability of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) to keep all national currencies within predetermined bounds of fluctuations. This incapacity has subsequently led some currencies, e.g the pound sterling and the peseta to withdraw from this mechanism, and their re-entry cannot be guaranteed at all. In addition to this, the European agro-monetary system has had its ups and down. Several adjustments have been undertaken to try to rationalise its operation since its inception. With effect from 1 January this year, its monetary compensatory allowance (mca) has been phased out, and this has necessitated the “green” ECU to be redefined as a floating currency. At the time of writing, however, the level of this new “green” ECU has been frozen temporarily to avoid reduction in some agricultural prices when expressed in the national currencies of the Member States.

The single currency concept is still shrouded in controversies. Member States have demonstrated divergent views on this matter even though the commitment to the concept is enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty. Even sectors within Member States are divided. Some in the business sector seem to be very supportive for reasons that it simplifies accounting, is less costly, and that it substantially removes financial speculation. Others see it differently again. The politicians of course associate the loss of their own national currency with the loss of sovereignty, national independence, pride and image. And some of them are quite vociferous when it comes to announcing their opinions on the matter. Clearly, Mr Delors was justifiable in expressing his fear about the Community’s improbability of achieving a single currency.

To many of us, it just seems so apparent that the fabric of the very bases of the Community is being shaken by controversies, impasses and intractabilities which are the result of conflicts, and very often misinterpretations, of the interests and competences of the European Commission, which treats issues in the global and ‘federal’ context, as against those of the Member States.

The extent of Mr Delors’ pessimism is gauged by the words he chose to express his misgiving. He talked of “the lack of a broad and long-term vision of the perils facing the European countries if they prove to be incapable of joining their efforts and improving cooperation“; of the need “to speak frankly and even brutally“, and of “short-sightedness” which “masks the lack of a strong political will to pursue the single collective project“. He even pleaded for a federal Europe when many utterances on this particular matter, by a number of major players in the Community, indicate that the issue was a lame duck, and will probably not see the light of day. Even the word ‘federal’ was left out of the Maastricht Treaty as part of an overall package of compromise.

The dominant scenario of doom and gloom depicted here could, to a large extent, necessarily overwhelm the lesser mortals amongst us. But not so for Mr Delors! He is obviously made of sterner stuff! He would not be where he is today if he wasn’t. He has faith in his system. And instead of standing aside to allow those who are creating the danger to trample further the edifice created by the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, and the Maastricht Treaty, he stands boldly in their way to plead for “a new initiative to be taken” and for new “political instruments“. To the protagonists who are debating the architecture of this edifice, he pleads that they should “waste no opportunity to give new impetus to the debate“. To the proponents of a political and federal Europe, he pleads that they “must engage in the struggle, together if possible, or at least with all the clarity necessary“.

Brave words, and all credit to him! However, do I detect just a murmur of resignation there that the construction of this edifice may just be getting snarled up by obstacles that are refusing to go away, and that it may just not realise its perceived grandeur and full glory? Be that as it may, only time will tell. Tower of Babel or a glorious White Elephant!