Very nature of future EU is at stake. After the brief Easter break, we are about to enter a period crucial for the future of Europe. First and foremost, the new fiscal compact will come into effect automatically as soon twelve of the signatory countries ratify it, and along with this will come implementation of the new rules governing the workings of the world of finance which the EU is continuing to adopt. And above all, the discussion on the future of EU construction itself will be deepened with the negotiations on the financial perspectives for 2014-2020, the subject of discussion in this column at the time of the ministerial debate, which was symbolically opened to the public (EUROPE 10586). It is impossible to over-estimate the significance of this issue: in the guise of reaching agreement on the financial resources the EU will have at its disposal, it is the very nature of European construction that is being decided. The principles are even more important that the financial allocation itself.
How so? Discussion at the moment is not about figures (this will be taken up at a later stage) but the content and operation of future Community policies. In fact, the debate is seeking to define the nature, the objectives and the operation of the EU of tomorrow, in addressing three key questions. How much integration will there be? Will the Europe of the future be a single unit or will it be made up of different groups of states, giving a several-speed Europe? Will the Community method be maintained or will Europe become essentially inter-governmental?
Reform of common policies. With regard to future funding, a dual starting point is on the table: the European Commission proposal and the demand by net contributor countries for a reduction of €100 billion. Thereafter, figures are laid to one side. For the moment, discussions relate to the content of and arrangements for future Community initiatives. These discussions are often fascinating. Our newsletter reports on them not only when they take place at ministerial level, but also at the level of the permanent representatives (COREPER). See, for example, in our immediately preceding newsletter, the discussion on cohesion policy, a key factor for the EU of the future. The general public, however, cannot follow these negotiations in detail. If a head of state or government intervenes personally, the media will report on whatever issue, whether it be trade policy or management of the Schengen area or whatever, and controversy blossoms. Not the most useful or effective way of conducting calm negotiations.
Too easily forgotten. The lack of interest among the public outside the professional circles directly affected by a specific issue can be explained by two reasons. The first lies in the usually highly technical nature of the matter under discussion. The second is that, for some time now, it has been fashionable to decry European initiatives and downplay the importance of what the EU institutions do. In point of fact, the EU is surrounded by countries which dream only of being part of this Union; none of the member states would quit the EU, even if the exit door was open for them to go; if any government threatens to suspend its involvement in the Schengen area (where there are no border controls), it is greeted with cries bemoaning such a move; there are no regions or provinces within the borders of the EU which do not call for European support for its investment. That is the reality of the matter. Some European achievements are hugely successful: take, for example, the Erasmus scheme, in which all young people are keen to take part. Nor should it be forgotten that the EU has brought permanent peace and friendship among countries which previously had been in constant conflict (continuing conflict can be seen around the EU or overseas). These facts, however, are often forgotten or ignored, especially by those who, having been born after all this had been achieved, consider it all as just how things are.
Swimming against the tide. In this situation, my thoughts often go against the tide. I believe that even the budgetary difficulties in which most member states find themselves and the scandals that have blown up have a positive side: they demonstrate the extent to which, in most members states, public money was wasted, the political classes were often corrupt, the world of finance abused its power and social injustice prevailed almost everywhere. The public reaction and that of some political forces reveal hopeful signs.
First off, I mention the reforms in the world of finance because this was the most harmful the most unfair, its abuses were breathtaking - and, in part, they remain. The EU is working actively, however, to bring this world back into line and make it more transparent, phasing in a broad range of disciplines and rules which together add up to a genuine revolution. A section of the banking world even gives the impression of being relieved and is keen to make it known. Many banks lay emphasis in their advertising on the fact that they are working exclusively to finance the real economy, lending to and supporting companies and those who are seeking to create jobs, and have turned away from all speculation on financial operations. The new disciplines seek not only to get rid of the abuses. The world of finance will also have to make its contribution to the funding of Community action: taxing financial transactions will help give the EU greater budgetary independence! I am well aware that nothing has yet been won, that the form of what used to be called the Tobin tax and how it will work in practice are still under discussion and that great differences exist among national stances, but I do not believe that, politically, either the Community institutions or the majority of member states will give up on this project, previously seen as unrealistic by several states and now under serious consideration.
Possibility of EU financial independence? Even partial financial independence for the EU would represent dramatic progress by the new financial perspectives. Member states which are net contributors to the Community budget, and which have called for the EU to display similar austerity to that which is being shown everywhere at national level, might relax their position. It should not be forgotten that negotiation in these areas is not the sole preserve of governments: the Community institutions also have their part to play. The Commission prepared not only the overall totals of the 2014-2020 perspectives but also the various sectoral documents already being discussed; and the European Parliament has a leading role to play, its assent being required. The Parliament has prepared well, putting Alain Lamassoure at the helm, with, alongside him, representatives of the main political currents and, especially, understanding the need to involve national parliaments in the negotiations as, ultimately, it is they which will be responsible for a large part of the future funding of European action. This column will return to look in closer detail at these features the outcome of which will be of critical importance to the future of Europe.
(FR/transl.rt)