Personae offered in and responses given to Jospin’s and Prodi’s speeches

only defines the Spanish executive’s attitude, but – as the preceding presentation has shown – may be extended to the Spanish press coverage of the debate as well.

again presents his views to one or another specific audience might have passed altogether unnoticed had it not been for the close proximity between his and Jospin’s utterances. Although the German press is probably right in arguing that Prodi had not intended his statement at the Sciences-Po to be conceived in the context of Jospin’s speech, it is quite understandable that the newspapers should make this contextualisation. In itself Prodi’s speech is too abstract in the positions it forwards and too conventional in the choice of speaking situation for the newspapers to pay it any sustained attention and for other actors to discuss it independently (see figure 24).

Figure 24: The personae offered in and responses given to Prodi’s speech

1st persona:

Prodi, President of the European Commission and former national Italian politician

2nd persona:

Pro-European citizens and politicians

2nd persona (non-ideal):

Euro-sceptic public

3rd personae:

Strictly national and European positions.

Discussants who focus on either means or ends

All:

Presentation in the context of Jospin’s speech

5.3.5. “The EU is our effective, progressive platform” – Lykketoft in Copenhagen Presentation of the speech

On the 23^rd of August 2001 Mogens Lykketoft, who was then the Danish foreign minister,

presented his visions for the future of Europe to the Council for International Affairs at the Danish parliament. The speech was entitled “Europe in the world,”¹¹¹ and its advent had been announced in June when the government published a white paper on Denmark’s relationship with Europe.¹¹² The relationship between Denmark and the EU is at the base of all the opinions set forth in the speech.

The vision advocated is one in which common European decisions and actions should be taken in many different areas. Yet Lykketoft places a fundamental restriction on the EU’s development:

however profound and extensive the co-operation may become, it should retain its intergovernmental dimension.

Constitution of personae

In the opening paragraphs of the speech Lykketoft performs a simultaneous identification of himself and his audience, not only establishing the speaking and the listening positions, but also creating common ground between them. He begins this task by presenting the EU as a necessary framework for Danish efforts to create positive developments on a global scale (ll. 5-6), but public support for the common project is not taken for granted (ll. 25-29). Rather, Lykketoft takes up the issue of people’s hesitancy towards the EU and seeks to redefine it: “The doubt about the EU is probably not an expression of a division of the nations into two populational groups in total disagreement. It is rather an expression of oppositional sentiments in the minds of most of us: We both have strong feelings tied to the nation and a sense of the utility of European co-operation” (ll. 32-36). This definition of doubt as an inherent trait of both speaker and audience is followed by a narrative in which historical developments mean that an initial scepticism towards the EU is replaced by firm conviction that it is the most productive forum for positive change.

Lykketoft’s position is abstractly identified as being proactive and the speech is addressed to an equally abstract second persona with the same basic traits as the speaker. It is from this vantage-point of basic commonality that Lykketoft substantiates and advocates his proposals, but before taking up this task he performs a move of demarcation, identifying and shutting out a third persona and confirming the identity of the first and second personae in the process:

111 “Europa i verden.”

112 Says the reporter covering Lykketoft’s speech for Information (24/08/01B).

There is talk of building bridges in Danish European policy. Bridges cannot be built to those who deny the realities of the European co-operation and whose political lives depend upon nourishing prejudices and fear of the future, the foreign, and the foreigners. But bridges can and must be built between the national characteristics we want to maintain, and the European co-operation we cannot do without. My speech today is an attempt at such bridge building (ll. 47-53).

Viewing the rest of the speech from the perspective of the bridge metaphor, it seems that a double connection is being sought. In presenting his vision of Europe Lykketoft both attempts to bind his and the audience’s nationally anchored personae to each other and to the EU. Lykketoft presents a substantial vision of Europe’s future that he judges to be wholly realistic, capable of dealing with the existing challenges, and in accordance with the positions of the European partners (ll. 61-63).

The third persona that is internal to the Danish context, but differentiated from the people whom Lykketoft invites to participate in dialogue and co-operation, is not the only position from which the speaker differentiates himself and his audience. An external third persona that is similar to the third personae of unregulated capitalism and globalisation presented by Jospin and Prodi is also established. However, Lykketoft does not only present the common ‘other’ of the EU members in terms of a struggle against abstract forces, he also presents the US as the specific third persona in opposition to which a common European identity should be created and endorsed (ll.

227-248).¹¹³

Lykketoft creates a common speaker-audience identity that is clearly national, but takes a constructive attitude towards the EU seeing it as the means to achieve already accepted goals. From this perspective the main question becomes how to organise the EU in such a way that it will be capable of effective action without encroaching on the member states’ national

sovereignty. The question of this organisation is the issue on which Lykketoft welcomes further discussion, and he thereby endorses and promotes the agenda of the Nice Declaration. In his consideration of how the debate should be continued, Lykketoft declares his support for the idea of creating a convention (ll. 538-540). However, Lykketoft warns of entering into complicated debates about a constitution for the EU, a catalogue of competences and other technical matters; such discussions, he says, will only strengthen myths about secret plans of a stronger Union (ll. 616-620).

By following the agenda that was established at Nice, by referring to Jospin’s position (ll. 374-375) and to proposals put forward by Tony Blair and the Czech president Vaclav Havel (ll.

113 Jospin (ll. 166-1667 and ll. 181-182) and Prodi (ll. 139-142 and ll. 261-263) also refer to the US as part of the problem, but do not position it directly as a third persona.

659-660) Lykketoft relates to the European debate that is being conducted at the highest political level. However, the speech is not primarily an intervention into this context, but instead addresses a distinctly Danish second persona. Rather than creating a European persona for himself and his audience, Lykketoft establishes a Danish perspective from which the EU can be viewed positively and encountered constructively.

The speech recognises the importance of presenting one’s views on the European scene in order to influence the reform process (ll. 532-533), but the invitation to public participation in the debate does not transcend the national boundaries. Public discussion, in Lykketoft’s account, takes place nationally, and the politicians represent the views of their electorates at the European level; as Lykketoft sees it, the two domains do not overlap. In the last instance the goal of the speech is to create a national public opinion, a consensus on Denmark’s relationship with the EU, on the basis of which the Danish government can seek to influence developments in Europe.