The 2014-2020 financial framework will be flexible. The European Parliament's decision not to oppose the financial framework established by the European Council for the 2014-2020 period is wise and timely, on condition that the terms to which its consensus is subject are taken into account. Do we need to go over them again? Let me recap: (1) complete mid-term revision, to be defined by majority ruling at the European Council, or an expiry clause; (2) flexibility in applying the framework, from one heading to another and from one year of application to another; (3) reform of the EU's own resources system, including indications on the new system of financing to be introduced. Furthermore, the current Community budget deficits must be covered so that the new seven-year period does not have to deal with the burden of earlier deficits.
The European Parliament has therefore been careful to reconcile the two inescapable requirements - subjecting the new multiannual financial framework to a real revision clause, and avoiding the total and definitive rejection of this framework in the immediate future (a rejection that would have condemned the EU to survive with automatic annual budgets, which would make any planning of over a year impossible).
The Parliament was right. I therefore believe that the Parliament's conduct on this complex file was positive and I consider that the attitude criticising the Parliament for being too weak with regard to the Council and national governments is exaggerated grandstanding (see this column in yesterday's edition of EUROPE). The Parliament's attitude will enable the EU to have a multiannual programme that includes long-lasting commitments and projects, but at the same time safeguards the possibility of taking account - when the time is right - of the two events for next year which could bring profound change to the way the EU works. These events are the appointment of a European Commission and the election of the new European Parliament. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament of tomorrow will now be linked in to a financial framework that is rigid and definitive, in which they would not have participated.
Let us not forget that it is true that the Parliament could have rejected the financial framework prepared by the Council, but it did not have the option of amending it and would only have been able to say yes or no. And its no would, in practice, have blocked the true revolution which is unfolding before our very eyes in the economic and financial arena - a revolution in which the Parliament is directly engaged. In a nutshell, the Parliament's attitude on the 2014-2020 financial framework has opened the door to the transformations that are now under way and to those that will come in the future.
This does not of course mean that everything becomes clear and simple, and that the EU will progress in all serenity towards its new objectives - but positive developments are now possible.
Bafflement on other positions of the Parliament. The considerations above are not my unreserved backing for the Parliament's activity - some of its choices in different areas are indeed a cause of bafflement. For example, the positions it has taken on relations with Turkey or Kosovo have an exaggerated nature which does not take account of reality or ongoing developments.
The Parliament gives the impression of wanting to keep the idea of Turkish EU membership alive, when it would be more useful to study the developments that have come about and to suggest ideas for getting out of the current stalemate. Turkey is undergoing a transformation. It is abandoning the secular nature of Atatürk's constitution in order to assert its Muslim nature and to play an autonomous role in the Mediterranean (see this column EUROPE 10819). The European Parliament gives the impression of not taking this on board. Turkey is worlds apart and wants to assert its personality and it global role. This needs to be understood and account should be taken of it.
As for Kosovo, the official tendency of the EU is towards the negotiation of an accession agreement, although the very existence of this nation is not recognised by several EU member states. The European Parliament should examine the reality and take a position - instead of contenting itself with a rhetorical façade. The same can be said of the whole Mediterranean policy. I have already taken a clear position on this issue on several occasions, and EUROPE 10831 last week reported on European Commissioner Maria Damanaki's warning against wastage: “The economic crisis in Europe is a reality… the challenge is uncertain… Everyone can be a captain in calm weather, but we are (currently) faced with a rough sea”.
External relations are just one of the areas where the European Parliament could play a more active and less conventional role. This column will return to some other aspects. (FR/transl.fl)