A two-speed Europe is unavoidable. The growing support for a two-speed Europe reinforces my view that this will be unavoidable if one wants to prevent deadlock in the European construction project. Jacques Delors says that two speeds are not a weakness, but a strength. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing says that tomorrow's two Europes will have different names. I can't wholly share VGE's radical views, preferring more flexible ideas that make it easier for countries to move between the two groups of countries, but rejecting the idea of two speeds as a matter of principle would mean rejecting the ambitions and ignoring the original meaning of the European project.
How can anyone forget that the original six-country European Community was set up to put an end to war and achieve peace and reconciliation among countries emerging from the bloodiest war humanity has ever known? I sometimes get the feeling that countries that joined the club more recently (or which are knocking loudly on the door) have the aim not of dealing with any remaining disagreements and forgetting the conflicts of the past, but instead of strengthening individual nations' hands against their neighbours. Having one's own commissioner in Brussels and a seat (and vote) at the Council, chairing the Council and having MEPs of one's own nationality - all this can give new member states greater power over their neighbours in terms of territorial demands or other spats. I get the feeling that the true aim of some countries is to squeeze as much funding out of the EU as possible, viewing respect for EU rules and principles and monitoring by the European Commission as a millstone. I could add that some candidate countries want to join the EU simply so that their passport-holders can travel in the Schengen area without a visa.
These motivations are understandable, but only if one remembers the starting point. All countries are entitled to their own ideas and views about the European project, and can even voice them openly (like the Czech Republic). The EU does not reject any application to join the club as long as countries meet the membership requirements. Some more recent members, like the United Kingdom, however, do not share the aims of the EU's founders. I do not include Poland here - along with other countries, Poland has generally aligned itself with the highest ambitions for European integration. But other countries in central and Eastern Europe have taken up the British habit of putting national interests, rather than the common interest first.
Keeping an eye on use of EU funding by all three categories. The financial and budget crisis facing virtually all member states and forcing them to rein in public spending is the reason for the EU institutions closely monitoring the use of the EU's financial resources in all domains. There are three categories of beneficiary countries - those in the eurozone, those not in the eurozone and countries that have applied for membership.
(a) For candidate countries, the IPA 2 is being prepared (Instrument for Pre-accession Aid), which will form part of the financial perspectives (EU budget) for 2014-2020. In EUROPE 10593, we report on the recent meeting of representatives of the European Parliament, the Commission, the European Court of Auditors and candidate countries and the demand for proper monitoring of how EU subsidies are used. Stefano Sannino, Director General of DG Enlargement at the European Commission, said that the cash must bear fruit and recommended a monitoring system to assess performance. Karel Pinxten of the Court of Auditors said aid had to be put to good, productive use and warned of the dangers of feeding too much EU aid into the coffers of beneficiary countries (where it can disappear more-or-less without trace). The candidate countries are all demanding a new increase in EU funding. The IPA 2 is still being worked upon but it is expected that there will be greater monitoring of how EU cash is actually used in practice.
(b) Eurozone nations are already subject to severe surveillance and the Treaty on budgetary discipline will probably come into force quite rapidly. The rules are in place and are well-known so I will simply refer to something that seems at first sight to be outside the EU's control - spending by political parties. Political parties sometimes throw cash around as if there were no tomorrow and are coming under ever greater criticism for their spendthrift ways in several member states - strict measures have been taken (or are planned) in Italy to curb such profligacy, for example. EU surveillance is seen as quite normal in countries receiving cash from the eurozone bailout system. In this connection, Guy Verhofstadt, head of the Liberal group at the European Parliament, sent an open letter last week to the president of the European Commission demanding an explanation about the Greek government's decision to pay a whopping €29 million to the country's biggest political parties ahead of the general elections next month (see EUROPE 10592). Did Barroso and Euro Commissioner Olli Rehn (who monitor use of the Greek bailouts from the EU and the IMF) give the go-ahead for this spending? Barroso says that the funding of political parties is an exclusively national matter, but Verhofstadt replies that over and above the legal niceties, such huge cash payouts are a slap in the face for Greeks and the other eurozone countries, and he urged Barroso to explain all this at the EP's plenary in Strasbourg this week.
Not all the news from Greece is dour, however. We reported in EUROPE 10588 about a solar panel project, Helios, which could turn Greece into Europe's biggest generator and exporter of clean energy. Germany is reported to be the biggest investor in Helios.
(c) The other member states. The most controversial area of the financial perspectives for 2014-2020 is the macroeconomic conditions for EU funding, in other words, the power to suspend the payment of EU funding to member states breaking the Stability and Growth Pact rules. This covers Cohesion Fund cash first and foremost (which is where the lion's share of the budget goes), but some member states say it should apply to all EU funding across the board. “Net contributor” countries want a strict interpretation of the rule, but most other nations oppose any automatic suspension of EU funding. In EUROPE 10590, we covered the debate among sherpas at the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), which will continue among ministers on 23 April at the General Affairs Council. We track developments at the very heart of the talks on tomorrow's Europe and how it will be paid for.
Becoming more effective without pulling in one's horns. Readers will have noticed that my aim today is not to provide information they won't have heard of, but rather to draw a connection between information that has already been published in previous issues, drawing out its significance in terms of the talks on the new multiannual financial perspectives. Resources must not be reduced, but made more effective. Jacques Delors has shown on several occasions that European investment is beneficial to all, and Alain Lamassoure has demonstrated how spending from the EU budget allows a direct reduction and rationalisation in national spending (see interview in EUROPE 10592). One becomes more efficient and effective by getting rid of waste and abuse, and also by not forgetting the European project's original aims. (FR/transl.fl)