Pros and cons of budgetary austerity. Common policies are one of the most well-known and spectacular aspects of European activity. They determine its character and millions and millions of citizens are directly affected by them and it is, above all, through these policies that people get to know the EU. The issue of updating these policies is being examined, beginning with the CAP (common agricultural policy), which is famous (and sometimes opposed) throughout the whole world. There is also cohesion policy, which is extremely active and coveted throughout Europe's different regions. Preparatory discussions are taking place and these have been going on for quite some time with some of these policies. Nonetheless these policies are linked to the parallel and sometimes even more controversial exercise that is aimed at establishing the new financial perspectives, which will determine EU budgets as from 2014 (see this column yesterday). On a number of occasions, the European Commission has affirmed that the priority objective must not be how much is in the budgetary envelope. First of all, it will be necessary to agree on the objectives and contents of the common policies and then discuss the volume of financial resources required for putting them into practice. “Net contributor” member states, however, have other ideas and on several occasions have underlined the necessity of capping common spending, with each country monitoring and reducing its own expenditure.
This is a complicated exercise because each hypothesis is backed up by valid reasons. Some argue that common spending helps to make savings at a national level by ensuring that there is no duplication of jobs and by harmonising projects. Others argue that the EU has to impose an austerity package similar to the one the Community institutions themselves have demanded from member states. What actually happens in practice is that each country takes its own national interests into consideration, which is quite understandable. Maintaining European spending is sometimes based on valid reasons and this is the case with the CAP, where the general interest involves the environment, food self-sufficiency, the fight against hunger in the world, regional balance etc.
Five want to tough it out. Faced with the task of overcoming these difficulties, revolutionary projects have been launched that are aimed at putting into practice the old dream of the own European resources, which would eradicate divergences by putting an end to national contributions to the European budget. I am not going to make a list of the projects, some of which are rather naïve, whilst others are well thought out and, in some cases, bold and innovative. Our publication has reported on each of these projects whenever they have been launched. I will simply point out that the debate in this regard, which has been going on for a long time, came under the glare of the spotlight at the end of last year. This occurred when five member states adopted a common approach towards the president of the European Commission and demanded that the following rule be applied: “Commitment appropriations should not exceed their 2013 level and should be corrected to a rate of growth below the rate of inflation during the next multiannual financial framework” (which, as we know, comes to an end in 2020). The signatures to this approach were Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, in addition to the prime ministers of the Netherlands and Finland (their text has been annexed to EUROPE 10281). They consider that ambitious European policies for European citizens are possible, without increasing spending, as long as the funds available are used more efficiently.
Solid support for “own resources”. The alternative would be to create new own resources and this has been supported by top-flight figures: the joint approach by Jacques Delors and Etienne Davignon and the initiative by MEPs Alain Lamassoure and Guy Verhofstadt for a European tax on financial transactions. I could mention many others too but I prefer to quote Mr Lamassoure, the president of the parliamentary budgets committee, when he spoke at the end of the European Council on 17 December last: “If the EU's financial policy is decided in Berlin, its budgetary policy in London, its agricultural policy in Paris, its regional policy in Warsaw, its military security in Washington, its energy supplies in Moscow and its future nowhere, there will be nothing left of Europe!” He also added with a slight rhetorical flourish that “the future of Europe is not decided in secret by a few acolytes but rather, in the full light of day, transparently and democratically, following genuine European debate, with all the problems put on the table and by involving all the different parliaments and public in this debate”. The reference to national parliaments is important because it indicates that Mr Lamassoure has subsequently understood that the EP cannot make any decisions on its own; parliamentarians from the member states also must be allowed to express themselves equally.
One can see that the way ahead to defining new common policies is still strewn with obstacles. Nonetheless, Europe's future depends on these policies. We will return to this subject tomorrow. (F.R.trans/fl)