Taste for concocting Europe's “failures”. Last Saturday, a French newspaper's editorial focused on the “sad situation” besetting Europe. It mentioned a number of failures of the previous week, such as the disagreements between member states on changes to the Schengen area, nuclear plant stress tests and the positions of the EU with regard to Syria and Libya. It appears obvious to me that these three assumed failures are in fact some of the normal difficulties involving implementation of three decisions. This proves, on the contrary, that the EU as an entity exists and is determined to prevent the scrapping of national borders, submit nuclear plants to standard tests (which did not exist before) and support the burgeoning Arab democracies. It is normal that putting these ambitious projects into practice involves discussions in order to smooth out a number of the differences, but they should not be defined as failures in advance.
The Schengen area is not in danger. Let's take the case of the Schengen area. This is a spectacularly successful example of European construction. The announcement that Denmark had decided to reintroduce border controls was criticised and was subject to opposition, but its reaction was initially understandable. Fortunately, EUROPE 10377 provided a detailed report, with explanations from the Danish minister responsible for this issue. It transpires that no controls will be reintroduced at the borders. In the border zones occasional controls will be carried out but not on passports or people - rather on the goods transported. The measures therefore remain within the scope of action laid out in the Schengen rules. Let's not forget that Denmark formerly belonged to the group of member states that was most open and confident about the future. Public opinion has gone in a more narrowly defined direction, following the affair of the cartoons. These drawings were deemed perfectly acceptable by Danish public opinion and laws but provoked violent reactions from some Muslims, which have had repercussions on Danish public opinion and subsequently the elections in the country. The Danish people have become more distrustful.
Similar developments have been observed in the Netherlands, following the assassination of a politician by a young Muslim (who already had Dutch citizenship) and more recently in Finland, where the government had, nonetheless, agreed to provide financial support to Portugal, despite a new nationalist party refusing to endorse this support (the event is therefore not as decisive as certain people would have us believe). The power of the eurosceptic political forces should not be blown out of proportion. It is true that these forces dominated the most recent elections in Hungary but even in Budapest lessons are, perhaps, beginning to be learnt with regard to the real situation in Europe.
Importance of external borders. We can finally begin to underline the indispensable link between getting rid of the borders in the Schengen area and controls at the EU's external borders. It is obvious that getting rid of the intra-Community borders depends on monitoring external borders and the EU is finally beginning to tackle this issue seriously. This comment is not a reference to refugees from Black Africa, who risk their lives to escape the war. I would like, however, to highlight the disgust that can be felt with Colonel Gaddafi's behaviour. He deliberately throws these unfortunate victims into the middle of the sea, in the hope that they are shipwrecked, in an effort to wreak as much havoc in Europe as possible. He had previously threatened to do this. It is obvious that the mothers and their children involved have not chosen to make these perilous journeys out of despair. They would be unable to organise or pay for them. This is anti-European vengeance served cold by the sinister Colonel Gaddafi.
The Commission does not intend to reduce CAP funding. This is a misunderstanding that requires clarification. When the European commissioner for the budget, Janusz Lewandowski, mentioned reducing the EU's agricultural spending, he did not provide any figures at all with regard to the reduction. However, it was clearly explained in EUROPE 10376 that he intends to reduce the “agricultural spending proportion” of the budget. In the 1970s, this proportion accounted for 80% of the budget. In the 1980s, it accounted for 60% and it now accounts for 40%. It is this percentage, which could be brought down, due to an increase in funding to other policies - research, energy networks and immigration etc. In real terms, agricultural spending could remain stable, explained the commissioner, as well as spending on cohesion policy - in other words, the two pillars of European action which cannot be replaced, even partly, through national contributions. I therefore completely stand by the considerations I outlined last week in this column with regard to the role of the common agricultural policy (CAP) for Europe and the world at large. (F.R./transl.fl)