First round of analysis
5.1. Trajectory one: deepening and widening
5.1.2. Fischer and the final federation – the press coverage of Fischer’s speech Germany: surveying the reactions to the speech
The German sample consists of a total of 26 pieces, three of which are commentaries; figure 5 provides an overview of the articles and the sequence in which they were published. The coverage takes its starting point in recent criticisms of Fischer: he has been accused of having lost his energy and power of initiative, and the speech is seen as an answer to these charges.5 On a more general note, Fischer is said to be responding to the citizens’ waning support for the European project.6 The articles published right after the delivery of the speech have taken up Fischer´s account of the double challenges of enlarging the EU and reforming its institutional structure, and they present the speech as an attempt to tackle these two challenges.7
Later articles attend to different reactions to the speech. The groups whose voices are heard include: the German opposition, the French government and other French political actors, the British press and British politicians of both government and opposition, a number of smaller
member states, the European Commission, and the European Parliament.8 In the cacophony of
5 SZ 12/05/00, taz 13/05/00D.
6 SZ 13/05/00A.
7 taz 13/05/00A+C, SZ 13/05/00A.
8 taz 15/05/00B, SZ 15/05/00B, SZ 16/05/00, taz 17/05/00, SZ 17/05/00B, SZ 18/05/00A,C,D+E, FAZ 18/05/00, SZ 19/05/00A, FAZ 19/05/00. The reactions, with the exception of the British, are by and large presented as being positive.
Some nuances are provided in the coverage of the German opposition’s and the members of the European Parliament’s reactions; here elements of the speech are criticised, but the initiative and the general direction of Fischer’s proposals are complimented. Only one article, entitled “Europe needs no visions” (taz 15/05/00B), leaves the impression that the speech was mostly met with scepticism.
Figure 5: The German coverage of Fischer's speech
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10.05 11.05 12.05 13.05 14.05 15.05 16.05 17.05 18.05 19.05 Date of publication
No. of articles
SZ taz FAZ
voices a warm French tone of approval rings through clearly. And this tone is picked up in a number of articles that ponder whether Fischer’s speech will impact the Franco-German relationship positively.9
The possibility of implementing Fischer’s ideas is discussed in several articles. The views expressed range from the hope that Fischer’s initiative will spark more discussion to the claim that Fischer’s ideas will form part of a common Franco-German proposal for the institutional reforms that are to prepare the EU for enlargement.10 Between these extremes lie the lament that Fischer did not include specific proposals for the current IGC, the irritation that he did not present his ideas officially, and the call to transform the thoughts into action.11
France: let the debate begin
The French ten-day sample contains 28 articles in all (see figure 6); 6 of the texts are commentaries and there is one leader. In the French coverage Fischer’s speech is sometimes perceived in the context of preparing for enlargement.12 Also, it is presented in the context of the upcoming French EU-presidency and the IGC to be held during that presidency.13 But most importantly, the speech is seen as an attempt to launch a broad and fundamental debate on European finality.14 Fischer’s speech is said to break with a reportedly dominant “minimalist” or “realist” approach to integration in which only goals that are immediately realisable can be discussed. Repeatedly, it is stated that Fischer’s speech provides an opportunity, which should not be ignored.15
Having set the context for reception of Fischer’s message, the French coverage attends to a number of reactions to the speech,16 and a substantial part of the sample is made up of first-hand responses in the form of evaluative articles. All of the evaluative pieces view Fischer’s statement positively: they all applaud the initiative, most agree with the overall goal of the speech, and some take up the detailed discussion of what will be the best means of achieving the commonly perceived end. The tone is struck by a Le Monde leader (15/05/00A) entitled “Danke schön, M.
9SZ 17/05/00A, SZ 18/05/00B+C, SZ 19/05/00B.
10 SZ 17/05/00A, SZ 18/05/00A.
11 FAZ 18/05/00, taz 16/05/00, SZ 17/05/00B.
12 LF 13/05/00, Lib 13/05/00, Lib 16/05/00.The claim that the enlargement process must be accompanied with deeper political integration is widely accepted.
13 Lib 13/05/00, LM 13/05/00B, LM 15/05/00D, Lib 19/05/00C+D. The question is whether Fischer’s proposals come at a convenient time or not.
14 LM 11/05/00, LF 12/05/00, Lib 15/05/00, LM 15/05/00B+D, Lib 16/05/00, Lib 19/05/00.
15 LM 13/05/00, Lib 15/05/00, LM 15/05/00B+D, Lib 19/05/00D, LF 19/05/00A.
16 Among the mentioned reactions are those of the French, German, and British politicians of both government and opposition parties (LM 13/05/00A+B, LF 13/05/00, Lib 13/05/00, LM 15/05/00D-F, Lib 15/05/00, LF 18/05/00A, Lib 19/05/00C+D, LF 19/05/00A).
Fischer,” and it reaches its climax in Le Figaro’s editor’s call for the French government to present its own vision, “because that which Berlin has started, France should conclude” (19/05/00B).
England: who’s afraid of Joschka Fischer?
The English sample has two commentaries and one letter out of a total of 19 articles (see figure 7).
The one article that precedes Fischer’s speech sets the intervention in the context of a recent survey that shows the German support for the European project to be declining.17 The focus of the first four articles that follow Fischer’s speech is his attempt to strengthen the Franco-German axis.18 These articles all mention Fischer’s assurance that the ideas presented in the speech and the use of the
17 Tim 11/05/00.
18 Tim 13/05/00, Ind 13/05/00, Guar 13/05/00, FT 13/05/00.
Figure 6: The French coverage of Fischer's speech
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10.05 11.05 12.05 13.05 14.05 15.05 16.05 17.05 18.05 19.05 Date of publication
No. of articles
Lib LF LM
Figure 7: The English coverage of Fischer's speech
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10.05 11.05 12.05 13.05 14.05 15.05 16.05 17.05 18.05 19.05 Date of publication
No. of articles FT
Ind Guar Tim
term federation are not meant as a provocation and should not be feared. Yet all articles convey a general understanding of the speech as having a negative impact on the British government’s relations to Germany and on the British position in the EU as such. This understanding is either presented as the central meaning of the speech,19 or it emerges in British reactions to it.20 The reactions of the British Labour government and the Conservative opposition are given equal
attention, and both reactions seem to follow consistent patterns. The Conservatives are presented as being furious at Fischer’s proposals, but satisfied that he has “…blown the lid off Europe’s
superstate agenda” (Ind 14/05/00). The government emphasises that Fischer’s is a minority position and a personal view, but also claims that the existence of positions such as his underlines the
importance of continued British involvement in Europe.
Following the first days’ focus on the content of the speech and the immediate responses by the British government and opposition, the coverage is broadened to include other reactions and to consider the wider context of the speech. The reported reactions include those of French and German politicians and of the European Commission.21 Furthermore, direct responses in the form of commentaries now appear, and these commentaries display a willingness to take up Fischer’s invitation and discuss his proposals constructively that is not present anywhere else in the English coverage.22
The vast majority of the English coverage of Fischer’s speech is centred upon the theme of whether or not the speech presents a threat to Britain’s position in Europe.23 Seemingly unable or unwilling to discuss the substance of Fischer’s proposals, the newspaper coverage of the speech and the reactions to it focuses on tactical aspects especially as they pertain to the upcoming summit at Nice – what alliances are being forged? What negotiating positions are available? The
19 “Britain was given notice yesterday that it faced being isolated from a new ‘fast-track’ European federation” (Tim 13/05/00). “Germany is pulling away from Britain and moving closer to France again as it seeks to build up a federalist Europe” (Ind 13/05/00).
20 Ind 13/05/00, Tim 13/05/00, Guar 13/05/00, Ind 14/05/00.
21 FT 16/05/00, Guar 16/05/00, FT 18/05/00, Guar 18/05/00, Tim 19/05/00A+B, Guar 19/05/00.
22 The lone letter of the sample (Tim 17/05/00) is authored by Andrew Duff, a British Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament and fervent federalist, and one commentary (FT 19/05/00A) is by Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the French Institute for International Relations. The identities of these commentators account for their willingness to participate in the debate as Fischer proposes it should be conducted. The other commentary (FT 18/05/00) is written by two Financial Times reporters and, unsurprisingly, it also proves willing to discuss Fischer’s propositions positively.
23 The theme of the connection between institutional reform and enlargement is mentioned in passing (Guar 13/05/00) or presented as one of Fischer’s reasons why France and Germany need to collaborate closely (FT 13/05/00). In the British context it is, however, also possible to use the pending enlargement as an argument against conducting fundamental discussions at the moment (Tim 19/05/00).
broader prospects of a debate on the finality of Europe is welcomed by a few enthusiasts, but generally it is “…met with a frosty silence from Britain” (Guar 18/05/00).
Denmark: interferences in the euro-debate
There are nine articles in the Danish sample (see figure 8), eight news stories and one commentary.
In the Danish coverage Fischer’s speech is frequently seen in the context of the upcoming Danish referendum on accession to the EMU and the single European currency.24 Fischer’s speech coincides with an intervention into the Danish euro-debate by Commission President Romano Prodi, and both statements are taken to reveal that accession to the common currency is a thoroughly political process.
The contextualisation of the speech in terms of the Danish euro-debate includes Danish politicians’ reactions to it. The Eurosceptics and advocates of a ‘no’ in the referendum are reported to be happy with the honesty of the proposals whereas proponents of a ‘yes’ seek to downplay Fischer’s message and the role it will have.25 There is some disagreement over the importance and potential impact of the speech at the European level.26 However, it is characteristic of all the Danish coverage that it only discusses Fischer’s speech actively when the utterance is reinterpreted as a contribution to the national discussion of Denmark’s affiliation with the EU in
24 Pol 13/05/00A+B, JP 14/05/00, Pol 14/05/00A, Pol 18/05/00.The referendum was held on the 28th of September 2000 and resulted in a rejection of the euro by a majority of the voters (53.2 % voted against, 46.8% in favour).
25 Pol 13/05/00A+B. The Eurosceptics, of course, disagree with everything Fischer says and only applaud his honesty.
In a similar vein, one article reports that while the Danish supporters of further European integration emphasise the substantial differences between their own and Fischer’s views, they welcome the broader debate to which the speech contributes (Pol 14/05/00A).
26 Pol 14/05/00A, Inf 16/05/00.
Figure 8: The Danish coverage of Fischer's speech
0 1 2 3 4
10.05 11.05 12.05 13.05 14.05 15.05 16.05 17.05 18.05 19.05 Date of publication
No. of articles Inf
BT JP Pol
general and the euro in particular. The broader European debate that Fischer’s speech is said to inspire is typically reported rather than enacted.27
Spain: the placid bystander
The Spanish ten-day sample consists of only six articles (see figure 9), one of which is a commentary. In the Spanish coverage of Fischer’s speech, the discussion of European political integration is typically related to the thematic of how to ensure the EU’s economic strength.28 Fischer’s emphasis on the connection between enlarging the EU and strengthening its political dimension is not mentioned at all.
The most frequently emphasised issue is the question of the Franco-German
relationship. Several articles state that Fischer’s speech should be seen as an attempt to revive the connection, and the French reception of the German invitation is also a recurrent theme.29 In all articles it is agreed that the Franco-German ties are no longer as close as they once were, but there are different interpretations of the effect Fischer’s speech will have on the relationship.
The reactions of other countries than France are only mentioned one time. Here it is stated that “…although it [the speech] is hair-raising to some Eurosceptics in London and
Copenhagen, or even Madrid, it contributes decisively to reactivating the debate on the construction
27 The exception to this rule is the sample’s lone commentary (Pol 14/05/00B). Here Politiken’s editor in chief discusses Fischer’s proposals from the perspective that a European Federation is a legitimate and laudable project precisely because it would not be based on one common European people.
28 Exp 13/05/00, Exp 17/05/00B.
29 EP 14/05/00, Exp 17/05/00A+B, Exp 19/05/00.
Figure 9: The Spanish coverage of Fischer's speech
0 1 2 3
10.05 11.05 12.05 13.05 14.05 15.05 16.05 17.05 18.05 19.05 Date of publication
No. of articles
CD EP Exp
of Europe that was languishing” (EP 16/05/00).30 Fischer’s attempt at igniting a debate on the future of Europe is recorded by the Spanish newspapers but the issue is not explored at any length.