Artificial failure. Those who tried to rubbish the results of last week's European summit can be satisfied. Public opinion - at least that which is expressed in the media - has largely attacked the ineffectiveness of the EU, sometimes declaring its definitive failure. And the MEPs who were the leading lights in the rubbishing exercise have not escaped the general criticism. It's the EU as a whole which is criticised, particularly its cost and the cost of the European Parliament too, and the end to the single currency has been widely announced. Supporters of European construction have also had their say, but the Nobel peace prize that was awarded to the EU seems a distant memory, and the memory of yesterday's wars no longer plays a role in the unity of Europe, even though the EU is still surrounded by conflicts and threatened with terrorism.
A large part of public opinion is now convinced that the summit was a failure and nobody is talking about the beginning of a way forward that it provides. The attitude of part of the European Parliament has contributed to this conviction, although the European Council-European Parliament negotiation is still to come.
Beginning of a way forward at the Parliament. The chances of these negotiations succeeding are real. The president of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, has spoken of the possibility of moving some expenditure from one year to another. Mrs Merkel pointed out that the result at 27 is important for the negotiations with the Parliament.
François Hollande explained that - contrary to what is often said - the actual volume of EU financing will be above that of the seven-year period that is coming to an end, and that in the forthcoming discussion with MEPs, they will go as far as possible with regard to the capacity for the Parliament to move appropriations from one heading to the next and from one year to the next. Where could these words have been read if not in EUROPE 10782? And how many MEPs heard them? The heads of government were satisfied on the whole - with Donald Tusk from Poland clearly describing the evening of the agreement as “one of the most beautiful days of my life”. It is true that Jean-Claude Juncker from Luxembourg acknowledged that the financial framework adopted was shaky because the payment appropriations are not enough to finance the common policies - but he added: without improvement by the European Parliament. This is nonetheless a beginning of a way forward for the forthcoming discussions between the Council and Parliament.
Are MEPs divided? Admittedly we must understand the attitude of the harshest MEPs. The prospect of the upcoming elections pushes them always to ask for more to the EU's budget allocation and to strongly attack the political forces opposed to this. Yet when the heads of the political groups express their opinion together, their attitude is different. I'd like to ask my readers to re-read the common Daul/Swoboda/Verhofstadt/Cohn-Bendit position that shows the stance of the four main political groups in the European Parliament ahead of the negotiation with the European Council. Their positions are ambitious in the right direction.
It is true that other MEPs have advised outright rejection of the summit document and have advised replacing it with annual budgets, stating that this system does not prejudge the future and would allow higher allocations in certain sectors. Yet this would involve a radical split between the institutions - Parliament against Council. This approach can be summarised in one sentence: it is time for the European Parliament to take action because it is the only institution which can say NO and which can defend the general European interest in the face of national selfishness. It should be added that, in the view of the most radical MEPs, rejection would be decided by secret ballot in order to protect the voters! The European Council has not given its reaction, but the Belgian minister for foreign affairs, Didier Reynders, said: “If 27 governments take a decision with the support of their national MPs, it would highly unrealistic for the European Parliament to want to fully reject this same decision”.
Jean-Pierre Audy MEP presented his formula in order to avoid an open European Parliament-European Council conflict, explaining that the blockage would not be a total and definitive rejection: “I propose freezing the appropriations from 2014 to 2016, and negotiating a revision clause for the 2017-2020 period. In 2016 we will have a new European Parliament, a new European Commission, a new president of the European Council (…) and we should have allocated the EU own resources. In 2016 most member states should have ratified the Treaty and the United Kingdom could have left the European Union”. And in 2014 all the issues could be tackled in the electoral campaign.
If the two institutions act wisely, a compromise seems possible. (FR/transl.fl)