Poland or France - which is right? There are still those who oppose a two-speed Europe. Poland is endeavouring to combat and prevent what would seem to be an inevitable course (being already underway, in fact). Last week, Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski took part in a conference (organised in Paris by the European Council on Foreign Relations), where he firmly rejected such a hypothesis, taking a stance in favour of a compact EU, and putting forward a number of suggestions that might, in his view, facilitate safeguarding the EU's united character. He was of the opinion that member states should all pull together to ensure essential progress is made in European construction, while defending a number of national areas of competence.
This dual approach implies that: (1) a federal power must be gradually set in place, with a budget that is in line with its ambitions (including on the military side); and (2) competences representing the identity of a country (education, societal issues such as a ban, or otherwise, on abortions) would remain national. For other aspects, the autonomy that Poland wants appears, above all, to be dictated by national interests. For example, in energy policy, each country would be able to choose its approach towards coal or shale gas. Radoslaw Sikorski's attitude, however, is essentially political. He rejects a Europe that is made up of a centre and an outer edge. Poland plans to be in the centre, whether for the single currency (which it hopes to join as soon as possible) or for other areas of integration. It is interesting to compare the Polish position with the speech delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy in Strasbourg (see EUROPE 10581) in which, however, he set out three levels of integration: (a) Europe of the euro, linked by the disciplines now well known to us; (b) Europe of Schengen, characterised by convergence in the rights of foreigners and migratory policies, with a stable government and presidency; and (c) Europe of the 27, which is destined to expand. The French president reaffirmed his vision of trade policy (in favour of rigorous reciprocity between the EU and third countries) and the principle of national individualism in management of the Schengen area.
Nicolas Sarkozy was perhaps a little too peremptory. But the two-speed (or more) Europe seems unavoidable given British opposition to progress with regards integration, and given possible enhanced cooperation between countries that do not intend to give up certain of the achievements on which unanimity appears impossible.
Surveying the use of EU finances. A number of MEPs have called for stricter oversight of European funds paid to member states. Jan Mulder has spoken of the lack of current management means and asked the EP to organise an annual debate, in plenary session, on the effectiveness of projects financed by the EU, so that citizens are duly informed of the effectiveness of programmes. He recalled that three member states (Sweden, United Kingdom and the Netherlands) had last year spoken out against the granting of discharge on 2010 expenditure.
Mediterranean: a pointless session? The 8th session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) ended in Rabat last Sunday. The results of the session seem to me to confirm my previous remarks about the UfM, a quintessentially theoretical union. None of the real problems were seriously tackled, which goes to prove that the word “Union” means nothing. The session opened with the usual friction surrounding the presence of a representative from the Knesset, followed by several rhetorical statements calling for an end to the conflict in Syria (which is not part of the UfM), backing Kofi Annan's mission or calling for a just and final outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course, the text invites one to guarantee that there will be rule of law, independence of the justice system, pluralism of the media, counter-corruption measures and strengthening of civil society throughout the UfM. Then there is the call for the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus programme and a Leonardo da Vinci programme for vocational training - not forgetting support for a Euro-Mediterranean investment bank.
One can still hope, however, that all the chit-chat was accompanied by talks between a number of participants, allowing them to evoke some of the real problems: energy cooperation, free movement of persons and goods in the southern rim, the risk of Libyan divide, the impressive number of weapons held by militia not accountable to the civilian power, or quite simply the opening up of borders between countries. Once that happens - and only then - it might be possible to speak of a Union for the Mediterranean.
(FR/transl.jl)