Optimism is back, but... Thanks to the new Presidency of the Council, Europe has entered a new phase of optimism (see this section yesterday). “The European Union is the best place on earth to be born and live your life”, said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, adding that “80% of Poles say that they are pleased that their country is a member of the Union”. How can we be any other than pleased at this return of enthusiasm and confidence at the head of the Council? This does not, however, mean that we expect miracles: for the largest dossiers, the Presidency can do no more than open the debate; the “financial perspectives” of the EU for the period 2014-2020 will not be done and dusted in four months. Beyond the objective problems and necessary lead time, Poland has announced guidelines on a number of sensitive dossiers which do not match those of certain other member states. This is quite usual, but we mustn't forget that the job of the Presidency is to seek compromises whilst taking account of every country's position; it cannot impose its own.
Cautiously in the Eurogroup. The presence of the Polish finance minister at the meeting of the Eurogroup, even though his country is not a member of the eurozone, was the subject of some misgivings to start with. In Warsaw, it was explained that it is hard to be the chair of the Economy/Finance Council unless you are up to speed with what the Eurogroup is preparing for and deciding on, stressing that the situation in Poland bears no relation to that of other member states which have stayed outside the eurozone: the United Kingdom and Denmark themselves requested derogations, and Sweden is using every trick in the book not to join (until the tide of public opinion turns). Poland, on the other hand, will make the great step once the conditions have been met, so it makes sense for it directly to follow the birth and development of the rules which it will have to apply, once the time comes. Less appropriate, perhaps, were the comments of the Polish finance minister on the discipline imposed by the Eurogroup on Greece, which he feels is too strict; a strange initiative, it being public.
Spend more? On occasion, the Polish Presidency has stated its objectives clearly and firmly. As regards the new financial perspectives, it has pledged its support for a strong European budget, which “must be an investment tool to make a major contribution to the upturn in growth in the EU. The main element must remain the cohesion policy. The new multi-annual financial framework (MFF) must confirm the principle that the right response to the crisis is to extend cooperation”, implying solidarity between the member states. What can you say to that? As a national stance, it is perfectly legitimate, but it must be borne in mind that a number of governments have taken position against increasing expenditure and that it is the Presidency's job to reconcile these points of view and seek compromises, rather than to anticipate the desired result.
Balancing the CAP. Yet more explicit is the case of the revision of the CAP (common agricultural policy). The Presidency's document states: “one of the objectives will be to define a new direct payments system, based on objective criteria rather than historical ones”, adding that the second pillar of the CAP should “be more inter-complimentary with the cohesion policy”. The agriculture minister had earlier taken position in favour of a single flat-rate for “direct payment based on surface area” and the secretary of state for European affairs, Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, said that the CAP should apply the same treatment to all farmers, whether they live in the “old” member states or the ones which have more recently joined. I reiterate: as a national position, this is perfect, and on this point, Poland is most certainly more or less right. But my chorus remains the same: the Presidency should not be espousing a national position, but facilitating compromise.
Binding or voluntary? A third example: green energy. In Poland, nearly 94% of electricity is produced from coal. It is entirely reasonable to take account of this. But I do not believe that the Presidency of the Council is doing its job if it states that Poland “considers that more ambitious commitments at European level (than those laid down in 2008) should be carried out on the basis of the goodwill of each member state, without binding measures”. I repeat: as a Polish stance, this makes sense, but as an a priori position of the Presidency, it does not.
Within the Council, moreover, the national delegations and the Presidency sit separately: Poland will have the opportunity to speak as Poland. But the programme of the Presidency cannot pre-empt what, in its opinion, should be the result of the discussion. These comments, however, take nothing away from Warsaw's optimism-based message, and its desire to move the EU forward in a Community direction.
(F.R./transl.fl)