“Much ado about nothing”, just like the title of the comedy by William Shakespeare. The stance adopted by Nicolas Sarkozy last Sunday when he called for the review of Schengen rules and genuine trade reciprocity with third countries would not have caused so much of a stir if the reality of things within the Community had been better known and understood. Those who regularly keep in touch with this reality will be aware that these issues have been under discussion in the EU for quite some time. The French president took the opportunity to set out his position on them and the reasons for which he believes swift decisions are needed, and to state why, in his opinion the current situation is unsatisfactory. Negotiation on these issues is on-going, however. To better understand, it might be useful to recall the situation, which is regularly reported in our newsletter.
Review of the Schengen accords has been under negotiation since June 2011. An important step was taken recently: on 8 March, the JHA Council set out the powers of the “political guidance” of the Schengen area and how this guidance would work. It will be provided at ministerial level by the “mixed committee”, which is made up not only of the EU countries but also Iceland and Norway as associates (see EUROPE 10570). The Council decided that governance should be exercised essentially by home affairs ministers, thus by the member states. At the start of the week, EUROPE 10572 reported on Council discussions on the possibility of a Schengen area member state “reinstating border controls in the event of a major crisis, for example if there were to be great migratory pressure or if a state failed to properly manage common borders, an accusation levelled against Greece at the present time”. The draft text has been under discussion since September: “contrary to the wishes of the Commission, it is already looking as if decisions will be for member states alone, in consultation with their partners, of course, to avoid unilateral decision or taking other member states by surprise”.
That is the background to Mr Sarkozy's comments. Remember - the Schengen accords became part of the acquis communautaire in 1997. The United Kingdom and Ireland are not part of the Schengen area, Denmark has a partial opt-out, and Bulgaria and Romania have not yet been admitted.
The two sides of the “trade” issue. Nicolas Sarkozy's statement covered both the content of European trade policy and the way in which it is managed. With regard to the management, the French president believes that the European Commission has too much power: it is heads of state and government who should decide on the objectives of negotiations with third countries, with the Commission implementing and monitoring them. This is an internal EU issue: it is the EU which sets its procedures, the Commission is granted a mandate by the Council to negotiate, and the European Parliament is involved. The French president did not question that the negotiator should be the Commission or that the Council should reach decisions by majority voting.
The real nub is, then, the direction of trade policy, and here Mr Sarkozy was extravagant and outspoken in stating that the current situation is unfair and imbalanced: EU borders are open to everyone and everything, to goods and also to public contracts, to allocation of subsidies, etc, without any genuine reciprocity. His slogan is: Free trade, yes; unfair competition, no. He attacked the devastating laissez-faire attitude, he rejected protectionism, but called for genuine reciprocity from the EU's trade partners. He went into close detail on some points, for example, in calling for a Buy European Act, modelled on the United States' Buy American Act.
Consistent stances? On trade policy just like on Schengen, the reaction, especially of the Left, has not been rejection of what Mr Sarkozy said; quite the opposite, in fact. He is accused of being a Johnny-come-lately - of previously arguing for free trade, with no rules or constraints, now realising the dangers of rampant globalisation, and coming into line with the position some on the Left have always held.
Here, too, the issue is far from being new. The European Commission has announced a joint proposal by Michel Barnier and Karel De Gucht for next Wednesday (see EUROPE 10572) seeking to restrict access to public contracts in the EU by companies from third countries which do not offer equivalent public procurement conditions to European companies, China being the major target here. Barnier stated that this was a non-protectionist response which allowed the EU to strengthen its position vis-à-vis its trade partners.
If we were to disregard the electoral objectives for a time …
All the above highlights the degree to which some positions are influenced by the close approach of elections, especially but not only, in France. An attitude or stance may be shared or rejected depending on the political allegiances of whoever puts it forward and whoever responds. Depending on where it comes from, everything is either good or bad. In an electoral campaign, such conduct is understandable, perhaps even inevitable, but in some instances is harmful to objectivity. It has to be wondered sometimes if there are not certain knee-jerk reactions to positions adopted, without their having to be read: “Who said? The other lot? Well then, I disagree”.
Of course, an electoral campaign is not, indeed cannot be, an in-depth negotiation and we cannot pretend that all of the public can have the detailed information provided by our publications or in my columns. It is just as patently obvious that any parliamentarian can, logically, challenge Mr Sarkozy's stances; it is perfectly right, for example, that Mr Verhofstadt should find it scandalous and inadmissible that the French president should intend to halve the number of immigrants admitted legally to France annually. These comments go in both directions: on trade, Tokia Saïfi of the EPP Group, has drawn up the list of the interventions by her group on tackling unfair competition, highlighting her 2010 report which made EU trade agreements conditional on compliance by partners with strict social and environmental standards.
Today's conclusion is simple:
(a) Europe must have a broad and effective Schengen area, that is to say, one that is open and at the same time protected, so that the removal of border controls is viable with no gaps and no disadvantages;
(b) real trade reciprocity is vital for Europe. This is a long-term undertaking, the principles of which must, however, be stated without delay. Every day, something happens that demonstrates the need for urgent action. Let me mention a few events at random - barely days ago, China threatened to cancel a large order for European aeroplanes; with the United States, the EU has just sorted out a dispute in agriculture that has been dragging on for years.
No electoral campaign currently taking place must be allowed to delay the realisation of an objective widely shared across the spectrum of political opinion in Europe. (FR/transl.rt)