Confidence against the current. Why - in this phase of European life when pessimism is all the rage - does this column try to present a less negative image than the Community reality? The answer is simple - I believe that the EU is finally heading in the right direction. The season of wastage, abuse and ruinous budgetary debt is partly behind us. To keep it simple, two categories were the key protagonists in the period of gloom - the world of finance and part of the political class. Now Europe is in the midst of gradually correcting the negative aspects.
This is not a question of political orientations. Whether the people's choice be orientated to the left or rather to the right, the main concern is fairly uniform - reducing debt to be able to boost the economy. Excessive debt absorbs all the resources and eliminates a country's autonomy and thus its ability to control the future. The ministers of finance in Germany (centre-right, Wolfgang Schaüble) and France (socialist, Pierre Moscovici) appeared together before the economic and monetary affairs committee at the European Parliament, and their statement is instructive - the priorities are largely similar (see EUROPE 10743). A few aspects are quite noteworthy - for example, Mr Moscovici's support for a budgetary capacity of the eurozone that is distinct from the budget of the EU.
Europe has reached the phase where the outlook for recovery is doubly visible:
(1) Control of the world of finance. EUROPE regularly gives account of the progressive definition and content of the new disciplines that will enable abuses to be eliminated and the behaviour that has been (and partly still is) so damaging to be controlled, especially for how the euro works.
(2) Renewal of the political class. A growing number of political forces accept the evolution and are taking part in it. It is true that there are also people who try to keep their privileges, even when they are abusive. It is up to the voters to decide - with their vote - the breadth and direction of the evolution.
That's why I have confidence in the future of Europe - two-speed Europe, if need be.
And foreign policy? The above remarks don't mention foreign policy, where the lack of common positions is increasingly obvious - the recent vote on Palestine's becoming an observer at the UN is a shining example. This column will return to this anomalous situation.
Energy - legal gaps and the hope of progress. This column's analysis of the situation in the EU in the field of energy (see EUROPE 10742 and 10743) was legally approximate in part - it ignored some of the Treaty's mechanisms that permit Community action.
Jean-Guy Giraud, the leader of the Mouvement Européen France, has rightly recalled that the Lisbon Treaty includes energy among the shared competences between the EU and member states. This treaty states the objectives to pursue (including energy efficiency, supply security, development of new energy, and network interconnection), as well as two possibilities for action - development of trans-European networks, and common action in case of supply difficulties.
Yet national autonomy is recognised at the same time, with each member state keeping for itself the right of: determining the conditions for exploitation of its energy resources; choosing between different sources of energy; and deciding on the general structure of its energy supply.
While thanking Mr Giraud for his comments, I note that the member states keep the responsibility of making essential choices themselves and that a common policy is indicated nowhere. Thus it is that nothing prevented the German decision to renounce nuclear energy without informing either the other member states or the European institutions; nothing hampers the autonomous choice of France (or any other member state) on the exploitation or rejection of shale gas; and in particular each country keeps the option of concluding the national agreements that it wants with third country energy suppliers.
Mr Giraud observes that two measures might radically modify the situation: (1) generalising the majority vote in the Council as regards energy; (2) removing the autonomy clause mentioned, or at least putting it under the Commission's monitoring. It is true - but these measures that he recommends involve revision of the Treaty (which means unanimity of the member states and ratification in all the countries). Why would the people, who prove - by their behaviour - that they want to safeguard their energy autonomy, accept the double modification suggested by Mr Giraud? Indeed the rejection by a single country or a single people would be enough to block the project that he recommends.
It would perhaps be effective to go via the enhanced cooperation route, which would clearly show which member states are in favour of a common energy policy and which oppose it. And the reality of a two speed Europe would become evident for everyone.
Encouraging developments? The results of this week's Energy Council don't seem to have changed the situation, but they are partly encouraging. They confirm the European Commission's intention (that has been supported by the Parliament from the outset) to take the European energy policy in the direction of a common policy. Yet I notice once again that for the moment we are still at the level of good intentions rather than operational measures.
The Commission has been asked to start reflection with a view to bringing forward by 2014 its framework proposals for after 2020. And on the aspect that causes such controversy - renewable energy - the ministers stated their intentions and defined a few principles - doubtless good and useful - but nothing really binding in the face of the divergences and abuse that this column has tried to describe (see EUROPE 10742). The ministers explicitly confirmed the principle of competitiveness for renewables while stressing that the administrative procedures and public support must be founded on the cost-efficiency report; and that the control of spending is a priority in these times of budgetary scarcity. The Council recognises that the public support mechanisms remain necessary for accompanying the technologies to their maturity - but this support must be more effective and flexible, and take account of technological progress.
When all is said and done, the Commission has been asked to work on the non-binding orientations with a view to reforming support systems. The Council conclusions point out that the support for new renewable energy projects would be gradually removed when a member state (not the EU then, but the authorities of the country in question) establishes that certain categories of renewable energy are viable and competitive on the market of that member state, so as to allow their gradual integration into the market and encourage technological competitiveness.
A significant detail - which this column did not disregard last week - is that the European Commission has been asked to look into the rationalisation and progressive removal of subsidies that are harmful to the environment or to the economy.
The Council's text includes several other elements that make a sort of basic document out of it, defining orientations for the behaviour of the member states - which is doubtless useful and will be important in the future. Are we facing an attempt to make European energy policy more Community-orientated? For the moment, achievement of this lies in the hands of the member states. The common energy policy is still a mirage. Yet progress is evident.
(FR/transl.fl)