Disappointment can be a good thing. The criticism and discontent over the results of the European Council are very welcome! They mean that each head of government has deemed it preferable to accept sacrifices and to choke back the dissatisfaction rather than give up (or postpone yet again) reaching a definition of the budgetary framework for Community work over the next seven years. It was perfectly logical that all the participants at the Summit should seek to put their own individual reasons forward - partly justified or at least understandable - and to defend the interests of their own country. However, when all was said and done, all agreed to make an effort and accept a compromise while taking the reasons put forward by their neighbours into account. This means admitting that it is worth making concessions just to have a new budgetary framework.
This is a positive and sensible attitude, all the more as it will impose greater diligence in doing away with waste and misuse of European funding by the recipient member states. Waste and misuse that are certain to add up to more than the reduction in the overall amount adopted, compared to the initial European Commission proposal.
Way is now clear for essential reforms. The second reason why the agreement reached is positive lies in the immediate momentum that arises from it for the reform of common policies underway or envisaged as, in order to be carried out, there must be a multiannual financial framework in place. For such reforms, the European Parliament is co-legislator with the Council. Improvements above all concern: agricultural policy (CAP) on which the EP will be voting very shortly; fisheries policy on which the EP has already taken a stance; and the vast and complex legislation on how the world of finance should work - not forgetting trade policy, the fundamental element of Europe's future, which awaits revision and updating to which I shall come back in detail in this column.
The result of the Summit also opens the road to institutional reform on which expectations are considerable as is the altercation. In particular, this would involve: a radical cut in the number of European commissioners; limits and arrangements for a two-speed Europe (which is a formula to be revised); autonomy of the eurozone; and arrangements for parliamentary control over the eurozone. The way ahead is open.
Parliament must have its say. It is now up to the European Parliament to say what it thinks. It is not empowered to change the decisions reached by the Summit but does have the right to reject them. Its powers have increased radically and that is reassuring. But one should not forget that the heads of state and/or government are also where they are due to free and democratic elections, sometimes very recent elections. Their democratic legitimacy is unquestionable.
Before the summit, the EP had put forward some very interesting ideas and scenarios on the initiatives that it would have taken in the event of failure - an intellectual as well as operational legacy that deserves to be taken into consideration. Comments made and intentions expressed by Messrs Lamassoure, Verhofstadt and Daul deserve to be reflected upon. I shall be coming back to this.
(FR/transl.jl)