Manifesto on the Future of Europe
adopted by JEF-France at its Congress on 1st-2nd December

A momentum in the debate on the future of Europe has happened in recent months. Most the European political leaders have voiced their ideas. Seminars on European integration have flowered. This manifesto is the result of a debate between students coming from various States and of various political ideologies, who nevertheless share the same vision of Europe. It is often claimed that public opinions wonder what the meaning and the aim of the European integration process should be. For us, this aim is water-clear. According to, and in full respect of, its original mission, the European Union must go towards an ever-closer union between its peoples, which requires the democratisation and politicisation of its institutions. The Union should also succeed in integrating its future Member States. It should finally become an agent of global regulation.

* * *

The great Europe enlarged to twenty-seven members, that was imagined in Nice, cannot work properly. The institutional system that we want to see must without question fulfil three criteria. It should be understandable to all citizens, represent each of them in the fairest way, and be secured by a clear legal framework.

The European Parliament's election should be organised both at the regional level and at the European one. The demographic criteria should be more taken into account. For instance, each Member State could have two seats, and then one more seat for each two millions inhabitants. One could this way manage to limit the number of MEPs without resorting to bargaining each time a new State becomes a member of the Union, or when population increases.

In the Council, a double-majority system would both guarantee the interests of the Member States and represent each European in a fair way. This reform would require some degree of political boldness, for the balance between Member States would be changed. However, a genuine European democracy cannot compromise on the principle of equality between its citizens.

The Commission's vocation is to become the government of the European Union. To this end, its working practices should be reformed to increase its efficiency. We also favour enhanced politicisation of the European debate. During European election campaigns, political parties should therefore have their own candidates to the Commission's presidency (Jacques Delors' proposal). The election by Parliament could be the first step towards a direct election of the president, once a genuine European public opinion is in place.

Fifty years after the failure of the European Defence Community, we call for the progressive set-up of a European army as an autonomous pillar of NATO, which could both improve the efficiency of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and reduce its operating costs. Defence policy should be pursed along foreign policy. Much has been achieved during the last ten years. We want to see the continuation of those efforts, and the integration of some competences in the Community pillar. It would seem logical that that the Commissioner in charge with external relations took on the attributions of Mr CFSP.

The European Union must also represent a judicial area that enables it to fight organised crime and the trade of human beings. A European prosecutor office would constitute the first element of this common judicial area. The approximation of the European legal systems must be continued. It would not be shocking to draft eventually a common criminal code, in which the various penalties would be harmonised at the European level.

The enlargement of the European Union will be costly. The situation of candidate countries will require important investments to build and modernise infrastructures, guarantee the protection of the environment, and preserve their social cohesion. Without overstating this financial effort, we have to prepare to these expenditures the public opinions of our States. The European Union will not be able to achieve its own day-to-day work and the maintenance of its cohesion policies without increasing its budget over the ceiling of 1.27% of its GDP. We therefore call for an amendment to the Cologne's agreement and for an appreciable increase of the Union's own resources through the creation of a European tax.

The European integration process must also be an enterprise of simplification - this might have been a bit forgotten in recent times. The European peoples are keen to maintain their cultural, linguistic and social traditions, not their various bureaucratic procedures. One should therefore act towards the approximation of corporate and personal income taxation. The tax system must be coordinated in order to put an end to practices of unfair competition between States. The common tax level will have to keep for Member States the resources needed to maintain an efficient redistributive system and a quality social protection. More generally, we call for the simplification of European administrative procedures and directives. Each European citizen, and not only lawyers, should be able to have an easy access to the content of European legislation. In the same vein, transparency of the institutions must be improved. At the moment, only the large budgetary amounts are known. As of today, citizens should be given the chance to trace themselves and directly European expenditures down to their last beneficiaries. In case of abuse, they should have to right to trigger quickly judicial processes. In order to contribute to a better understanding of the European Union's institutional system, we call for the drafting of a concise, clear and stable text: a federal Constitution.

Finally, the European Union must fully assert its role as an agent of regulation in the international sphere. Europe should promote with a single voice the principles like the protection of the environment, a stricter control of arm trade and the respect of social standards. It should continue to fight inequalities at the global level. The Member States of the EU must respect their commitment to devote 0.7% of their GDP to development aid. A second phase should then go much further than this. It is not only a better repartition of wealth, but also the stability of the planet that are at stake. It will also be necessary to set up a more humane immigration policy, decided and implemented at the European level. The European integration process has been developing around an area where people could move freely. Despite undeniable improvements that benefited to its signatories, the Schengen agreements created new discriminations towards third countries. We call for transition periods for candidate countries to be shortened. It is also necessary to show better solidarity towards countries of the Mediterranean area. The reception and stay conditions must be improved - especially as far as political asylum is concerned - and a specific aid should ease the integration of foreigners. At the moment, the European citizenship is linked to the nationality of a member State. The Union could go further and grant the European nationality to extra-Community nationals that have lived on the European territory for a time-period to be defined. After years of withdrawal into ourselves, let us show our braveness and our solidarity.

* * *

We are not the generation the journalists like to describe: a generation afraid of globalisation that, since the fall the Berlin wall, would lack ideological references. We believe in Europe and the role it can play in the life of Europeans and on the international stage. More than a question of meaning, the future of Europe is a matter of means and of political will.

Unofficial translation by Emmanuel Vallens