A false image. Observing how European news gets reported in the general media, one gets the impression that the EU is little more than a problematic currency, anything else being a secondary matter. This is understandable in the current circumstances, but how wrong it is! This is a false image of Europe because in reality, the EU is in the process of deciding on its objectives and future action in a wide range of areas. We can't let this false image remain in people's minds. The only way future generations would be able to afford to take such an attitude would be if the most important things had already been decided and made irreversible, for people who are born and live in a fully-established Europe are too young to have any conception or memories of exactly what its destruction would mean and what would be lost if Europe broke up.
A striking example. To take what looks at first sight like an insignificant example - the Erasmus programme that has enabled two and a half million Europeans since 1987 to do some of their university studies in a different country that is part of the Erasmus process and recognises this type of study and examinations. These young English, French, German and Polish students understand what Europe is about because they have experienced it first-hand. Two very successful French films came out, one in 2002 and one in 2005, that gave a taste of the Erasmus experience, and a book (The Cosmopolitcan Spirit by Vincenzo Cicchelli) quizzed hundreds of thousands of Erasmus students and came to the following conclusion: 'They move beyond feeling they belong to a particular country while remaining strongly attached to their countries of origin.'
Antonio Tajani, a vice president of the European Commission, said recently that Erasmus was under threat because the money was running out. Alain Lamassoure, chair of the European Parliament's Budgets Committee, confirms this. The Erasmus programme, so dear to Jacques Delors and a veritable symbol of Europe, can be fine-tuned but must not disappear.
Civilisation itself is at stake. I could quote a raft of further examples. The Common Agricultural Policy, the famous and often criticised CAP, is far more than what much of public opinion thinks it is, particularly the ideas put across by speculators in agricultural commodities around the world and importers of food from distant shores. The CAP does, of course, have its own batch of speculators defending certain privileges and must be closely monitored from all sides.
The negotiations over renewal of the CAP are complicated and there are often contradictory interests at stake. The problem of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is key for many global food giants, but the CAP is part of humanity's future and, just as importantly, the future of animals and nature more widely. The CAP fashions landscapes, fostering balances in the natural world, traditions and lifestyles not only for farmers but also for the whole population of Europe. The money woes that seem at the moment to be undermining the existence of the united Europe will be overcome at some point, but the CAP will always be of the moment because it ensures the future and the protection of European civilisation. The current negotiations should be followed by all political movements at the highest level, but one sometimes gets the impression that the current round of negotiations is focusing solely on monetary issues and matters of interest to big supermarket chains.
An Energy Community. The energy domain is far bigger and far more important for the future of Europe than the squabbles about the “Tobin Tax” or separating speculation from retail banking, but the European Union does not have an energy policy! There was a good reason why the idea of a European Energy Treaty has been mooted and is on the negotiating table. The European Commission and European Parliament are making valiant efforts to get as many decisions as possible taken at EU level and have had a degree of success. The Energy Efficiency Directive is important (see our issue 10680) and its binding and non-binding measures would help the EU achieve its target of 20% energy savings by the end of the decade.
There has also been some progress in coordinating member states' energy deals with non-EU countries, but there are serious shortcomings. Coordination means no more and no less that agreements with non-EU countries are a matter for the nation state: each member state does what it wants and simply keeps others, including the Commission, informed about what it has decided! This demonstrates that when it comes to energy supplies, each country promotes its own interests, even if this is damaging to other member states or clashes with their plans. Little has changed since the days of secret talks between Putin and Berlusconi at a dacha in Russia…
We must remember that the EU imports some €500 billion-worth of fuel from the rest of the world each year, nearly 4% of EU27 GDP, but the EU has no power over relationships with non-EU fuel suppliers. Despite some attempts to cooperate,the member states compete with one other in this domain.
Moreover, many aspects of domestic politics are totally independent of the EU or awareness of other countries. It was only by reading the newspapers that other countries and the EU institutions heard about the decision by Germany to phase out nuclear power.
Energy is a vast domain, and the establishment of a common energty policy or even a European Energy Community, would mark a radical step forward for European unity.
The British atttitude. I could extend my list to demonstrate that the future of Europe is about far more than just the euro, covering other areas crucial for our common future, not to mention political choices to be made by the member states.
The first political choice is about the United Kingdom's plans. The current UK government openly aims to transform British membership of the European project by ensuring free circulation of goods and other aspects of the Common Market while slashing its involvement in the various common policies and in the functioning of the EU institutions. Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that the UK will not take part in any strengthening of the European integration project, saying that the UK is swamped by EU rules. He says that it isn't true that there is too little Europe - there is too much. Too expensive, too much red tape, too much interference, he says. He is recommending a referendum not on whether the EU should be in Europe but on renegotiating the links between the UK and the EU. I will be returning to David Cameron's plans, which clearly hope for a special arrangement for his country.
Two-speed Europe already exists. The British attitude raises the question of two-speed Europe, because at the same time as London is distancing itself from Europe, on the Continent many political forces are recommending exactly the opposite, in other words a radical increase in the powers of the EU institutions. Some leading Europeans say the EU will have to split into two sections. The current president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has raised the question of a separate European Parliament for the eurozone! And Angela Merkel says that Monetary Union is open to all who are interested, but “it mustn't stop if any member states do not want to move forward”.
In reality, the two-speed Europe already exists, but it will not be set in stone and member states will always be able to move up or down a speed and join the faster Europe if it wants, if it meets the requirements and if it respects the inherent disciplines.
The newly emerging future. To sum up, if the monetary woes are overcome, as we desire, the future of Europe would include:
a renewal and strengthening of common European policies in a number of domains;
revision of the current treaties or the signing of a new treaty;
the option for member states to enter voluntary enhanced cooperation in a number of areas;
close links between the European Parliament and national parliaments.
I have deliberately ignored common foreign policy and the attitude to wars around the world. This is a burning issue that has to be dealt with separately. Although not undermining existing instruments and the regular meetings of the Council of the EU, current events demonstrate that the member states that have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council have no intention of giving up their seat to the EU and the member states take differing attitudes to the wars around the world. Catherine Ashton's statements are usually simple formalities, no doubt necessary but generally empty of substance.
(FR/transl.fl)