Only one answer. What should be said to member states that out of principle oppose any expansion in Community spending for the 2014-2020 period? This restrictive position is obviously advocated by countries that are paying the highest net contributions (difference between what each country pays into the Community budget and what it receives from it). They consider that at a time when they are obliged to reduce their national public spending, similar austerity should be introduced at a European level. The most appropriate response would be to demonstrate that financial perspectives as proposed by the Commission do not increase member states' contributions to joint spending and that these contributions are mutually beneficial. This task is being undertaken by the European Commission and the majority of the European Parliament (see this column yesterday).
Mr Barroso has argued convincingly and eloquently that: (a) the Commission's proposals would not cost European taxpayers more than the current EU budget; (b) one well spent euro at European level means savings at a national level and prevents duplication of tasks;( c) own resources would help prevent any increase in national taxes; (d) resources would be broadly focused on economic growth and jobs; (e) objectives would be linked; for example, funding to agriculture would also contribute to environmental protection; (f) expansion of funding in priority areas would be compensated by a reduction in other kinds of spending.
The Lamassoure project. It is, nevertheless, obvious that these explanations are not helping to alleviate the misgivings expressed in some cases, such as in the United Kingdom. These misgivings are taking on a character of strong opposition and unanimity of member states is necessary for the “revenue” chapter, in addition to ratification by all the national parliaments. Given that he is aware of the situation, the chair of the EP budgets committee, Alain Lamassoure, has launched the idea of a major “European Financial Conference”. I will let him have his say: “How can 27 hostile ministers be transformed into 27 countries in favour? The necessary alchemy still needs to be invented. This explains why this huge undertaking should include a public debate as broad and as open as possible, which brings together a European Financial Conference, consisting of all the different political forces in our member states.” National parliaments must take part in it and Mr Lamassoure explains why: “This is the European Convention method: 10 years ago, it transformed the toughest ministerial blockages into European consensus.” He added that “the Polish Presidency has agreed to the principle for this”. He concluded that “the weather in Europe cannot be reduced to the storms in Greece”. (Quotations from a text that appears in Interface, a monthly newsletter produced by “Confrontations Europe”.)
Mr Lamassoure is obviously aware of the fact that it is impossible for the Barroso project to obtain unanimous support of member states in the Community context and that it will be necessary to find another way forward in which national parliaments are directly involved. Fortunately, the period of rivalry between these parliaments and the European Parliament, is over. When the orientation and future of EU needs defining and deciding national parliaments have to be directly involved.
Uncertainties persist. The way forward will not, in any case, be an easy one. The Polish Presidency will just have enough time to open the debate (even though it is doing its best to develop preparatory work in this sense) and it is difficult to anticipate what the behaviour of the two Presidencies that will conduct the next phases will entail - Denmark (where nationalist stirrings have been witnessed) and Cyprus (whose political weight at a European level remains unknown). Let's not forget either that the Financial Perspectives document of the Commission has been described as “unrealistic” by the United Kingdom. Berlin considers that it goes far beyond what the German government deems acceptable and France considers that the stabilisation of its contribution to the Community budget is indispensable. There are many difficulties that the Barroso project will encounter but I will just mention two of them. The president of the European Central Bank rejects the idea of a tax on financial transactions if it is only applied in the EU because the result would mean banking centres moving out of Europe. The creation of an “intermediary category” of regions to support, whose per capita GDP is between 75% and 90% of the Community average, is incompatible with Turkish accession because these regions would be removed from the list of countries eligible for regional policy support.
Mr Lamassoure is right: by using normal procedures, unanimity would remain a dream. Innovation is required. (F.R./transl.fl)