Awaiting June. The European Commission and the Council Presidency have confirmed they shall not be giving an official response to the initiative of the five member states (Germany, France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland) calling for an austerity policy to be set in place for future Community spending. The Commission considers one should first of all define the aims and the policies before evaluating the budgetary resources needed to meet such ambitions, and has confirmed it will present a document in June on the new financial perspectives for Community action over the period 2014-2020. The stance taken by the Hungarian Presidency of the European Council of Ministers in response to the letter is very much the same. There will therefore be no official Community debate on this matter during the term of presidency that has just begun. This is how the institutional timetable of work stands although, in fact, the letter from the Five has already opened debate on which the future of European construction will largely depend. Reactions to the letter were numerous, some quite feisty, and these will no doubt grow stronger - which means that it might be useful to have a little preliminary clarification and reflection on the matter. Here are four such musings - which will not be to everyone's liking.
a) Knowing the text. First point: get to know the text of the letter from the Five. Everyone is talking about it but who has really read it? It is quite short and was published in No 2545 of our Europe Documents series appended to our bulletin No 10281. Signed by Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Mark Rutte and Mari Kiviniemi, the document does not call for the Community budget to be reduced but for its annual growth to be curbed to ensure it does not exceed the inflation rate. In practice, this would mean stabilising spending together with better use of available funds along four lines: improved spending efficiency, accurate tracking of incurred commitment appropriations, seeking out where economic leverage can be gained, and simplifying the financial framework. According to the Five: “It is possible to implement ambitious European policies for our citizens if we have a stable volume of spending”.
b) Redistributing funds used badly. Errors and waste in European spending is regularly denounced by the Court of Auditors and a parliamentary report has called for the suspension of payments to faulty countries to be automatic in the event of irregularities (see our bulletin No 10270). Each year, the Commission cancels funds that have been used inappropriately. The situation is improving but there is still misuse of funding. Instead of being returned to member states, cancelled appropriations could fund further European action without incurring a rise in the budget.
c) Keeping an eye on funding to third countries. Some funds used for a number of third countries should be better evaluated. I have mentioned before in this column the case of countries that already have atomic weapons or that are seeking to acquire them, and yet the EU continues to contribute to their spending despite the fact that, at the same time, the two European countries that have the atomic bomb are working together to reduce costs, as are the United States and Russia. Several European countries are encountering enormous difficulties when it comes to safeguarding and funding their social security and pensions systems - while part of EU external aid continues to finance governments for whom the bomb has become a priority goal. This is one of many anomalies.
d) Austerity for all. Operating expenditure is but a tiny part of the Community budget but some aspects of this spending, including that of the European Parliament, give rise to public perplexity. Austerity is needed even for the European institutions.
An element of the future debate. The above comments do not concern fundamental choices. They should be seen rather as helping to prevent the debate becoming a “war of religion”. The initiative taken by the Five must be considered just one element among others of the future debate, which is so important for defining what the EU will become in the future. The Five do not represent a uniform bloc and they are aware of this. They do not agree on a number of essential dossiers, such as the British rebate or Turkey's membership of the EU. They have given a kind of warning. In fact, the essential criterion for establishing future Community budgets will not lie in a few figures - it is a matter of assessing for what objectives and for what projects acting in common is most effective and most beneficial for all.
The Five's message is addressed first and foremost to the European Commission, whose June document will be the true point of departure for the major debate that, in practice, will largely determine the future of the Union. I shall be looking at a few of thee essential aspects in this column tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.jl)