Agreement on annual spending and beneficiaries. At first glance, the blockage of the 2011 EU budget is strange and rather absurd (see this publication yesterday) because the two branches of the budgetary authority (the Parliament and Council) agree on the annual volume of spending and the destination of this funding, and therefore agree on the essential nature of the entire budget. The difference is down to one of principle and the institutional aspects of orientations for the future. It is understandable that the authorities responsible are concerned about this because developments in European integration largely depend upon this matter. It is not the specific annual budget that is at stake but rather the multiannual perspectives for the post-2014 period and the possible creation of own resources, which would enable the EU to finance its activities independently: cohesion policy, agricultural policy, research, the gradual construction of foreign policy etc. Budgetary orientations in these areas are crucial. Citizens are not really aware of this but they would very swiftly become aware of it if the budget suddenly went up in smoke.
Beware of the consequences. The consequences are so serious that any failure is difficult to imagine. It is normal that the institutions are anxious to avoid any compromise on their positions and that the Parliament is particularly fond of its new powers. Nonetheless, is it really impossible to reach an agreement on the declaration which, while safeguarding the respective positions of principle, would have allowed for approval on this extremely important and urgent budget? A certain mutual distrust has set in. The Parliament is eager to use the full powers of its new role which places it on an equal footing with the Council. Certain member states are distrustful of it and do not want to see it going too far. The new orientations require a detailed analysis, which should not leave out the comments made by Mr Van Rompuy (see our publication yesterday).
The blockage has, nevertheless, had one useful repercussion: citizens will be able to better understand what the Community budget really is used for. It is very much in vogue to denigrate how Europe uses its money. Problems obviously exist, certain expenditure is excessive and some resources are badly managed. The controls, however, are stricter and more effective than in several member states and any malpractice is denounced. In percentage terms, the share of the budget used for enabling the Community administrative machine to function is minimal. Most of the budget funds policies, safeguards farming throughout the European territory, supports poorer member states, makes projects possible that member states on their own would not be able to achieve, co-funds infrastructure projects that go beyond national borders and helps to tackle natural disasters. Denouncing mistakes and wastefulness is all very well and good. Nevertheless, if cohesion policy is compromised, regional funding cut, major scientific projects abandoned and the way ahead for common positions in foreign policy blocked, it will be the citizens who will have to pick up the bill. Mr Barroso emphasised that it would be citizens, business leaders, the cities, regions and rural communities who would suffer the impact of this failure. There is an enormous risk that European economic governance might be compromised due to the absence of funding for making the new instruments operational - instruments which have been developed after so much effort and which are absolutely crucial.
At the most senior level. The Parliament is right to demand that the dossier be tackled at the level of finance ministers or heads of state and government. At the most recent conciliation meeting more than half of all the member states were represented at ambassadorial level. These figures know these dossiers better than anybody else but do not have a remit for modifying their original positions or agreeing to a compromise. The Belgian Presidency did its best but unanimity was impossible to obtain. “A minority of states blocked negotiations”, explained Alain Lamassoure. “Continuing at this level barely has any sense at all”, declared Guy Verhofstadt. According to Jerzy Buzek, the president of the EP, a large majority at the Parliament and most member states are prepared to compromise, which would also have the support of the European Commission.
However, a group of member states considers that the debate must focus on the 2011 budget, whereas a large part of the demands being made by the Parliament has nothing to do with this budget. Part of the European Parliament considers that these countries, in fact, do not accept the new balance of powers included in the Lisbon Treaty. The governments, expressing their misgivings, point out that the new parliamentary powers affect the content of the budgets but that in the area of own resources the EP is only a consultative body.
It is apparent that the dossier is still complex and difficult. Each party should, above all, think of the Union and its citizens' common interest more than attempting to assert its own individual powers.
(F.R./transl.fl)