Difficult but crucial. Will the European Council be able to define the EU's financial framework for 2014-2020 at the end of the week? The heads of state and government and their president, Mr Van Rompuy, are trying hard to give the impression that they believe so. Yet the obstacles are really very daunting - as is the subject of the overall contribution, and the distribution of the credits between the different spending sectors. After the failure at the end of last November (see this column in EUROPE 10738), the only glimmer of optimism can be found in the fact that an agreement is crucial - a failure or postponement without a virtually immediate date, would have immeasurable consequences.
The heads of state know this. We therefore need to hope that the apparently insurmountable obstacles might in large part be instruments for negotiation, and that each member state might be aware that it can't obtain everything it wants. Let's not forget though, that each member state has a veto - unanimity is needed and the European Parliament's position should not be forgotten either, which does not have the option of amending the possible agreement between the member states but which can reject it by a majority vote.
Initial positions. Let's come back to the initial positions of the member states. On the first day of the summit, President Van Rompuy will state his latest compromise proposals in relation to the Commission's proposal. The overall envelope is certainly not as vast as is sometimes made out. It only corresponds to a minimal percentage of the national budgets - it is how it is distributed which counts (always bearing in mind that wiping out the wastage and abuse would amply cover the differences of opinion on the overall contribution - a contribution which has been discussed at such length.) Having said this, it is easy to predict that the “net contributor” countries will remain restrictive - and even to the point of going beyond what Mr Van Rompuy will propose - while the beneficiary countries will try to safeguard the Commission's draft as much as possible.
In this generally predictable context, let's remember that:
France is opposed to the common agricultural policy's contribution being reduced
The United Kingdom wants to keep the rebate that was obtained by Mrs Thatcher in her day
Italy, while being a net contributor, favours the overall envelope being kept as high as possible, but taking its own specific situation into account
Mario Monti's tour. The Italian prime minister (or acting prime minister - while waiting for the national elections) has met Messrs Van Rompuy and Barroso in Brussels, Mrs Merkel in Berlin and Mr Hollande in Paris, to explain his position. Italy (see EUROPE 10777) is the third net contributor to the common expenditure - after Germany (by a very narrow margin) and France. Mr Monti had already laid out his position on several occasions. In his view, Italy pays far more than can be justified by its level of prosperity. He believes that the overall contributions for agriculture and the cohesion policy must not be reduced, but that the rebate and refund system must become fairer. His reasons - which he has moreover explained publicly at round table debates or interviews - being that he believes his country's position should be more balanced. And he doesn't rule out, if needs be, the possibility of a vote against - which would block the whole lot. Nevertheless he has expressed his confidence in the eventuality that the debate on Thursday and Friday might allow points of balance to be reached.
The institutional section. It now remains for me to add that several political forces believe that this week's summit should also bring up the institutional transformation of the EU. According to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing “nobody can imagine that in less than three years' time we will be able to designate a European Commission of 28 members, flooding Europe with regulations, while the draft Constitution, which was presented ten years ago, had this figure at 15. Equally, the designation of the president of the European Council should come out of hiding into the sphere of democracy” (our translation). Jean-Guy Giraud, the president of the Union of European Federalists - France, has recalled that the Lisbon Treaty (art 17 § 5) provides for the radical reduction of the number of commissioners so as to “sever the link between the commissioners and their country of origin” - a link which in his view sometimes persists, as a recent difference of opinions between Commissioners Rehn and Tajani might well have proved.
I believe that it's impossible and perhaps untimely that the summit discuss these institutional issues this week - but nonetheless it's useful not to forget them. (FR/transl.fl)