Nothing is going well, but… Everyone knows that nothing is going well in Europe - the EU is ineffective, public opinion has abandoned it, Community spirit has been snuffed out, and European construction is sliding backwards. It's pointless standing up to these fashionable commonplaces (which actually suit some governments). With that now dealt with, let's try and cast an eye over the recent developments and results of the last summit, without avoiding the criticism and reservations - and let's avoid triumphalism and praise while doing so. Allow me begin today with the two most spectacular aspects - the definition of the new financial framework and the reform of the common agricultural policy.
A. 2014-2020 financial framework. The agreement on the EU's financial framework for the next seven years is now in the bag, after long being considered as mission impossible since the differences in opinion firstly among the member states, and then between these member states and the European Parliament, seemed insurmountable. The agreement covers all aspects - overall volume of EU spending, early availability of appropriations for urgent objectives (like the battle against youth unemployment); planned re-assessments along the way (with the possibility of revisions), flexibility, political revision clause in 2016. The parliamentary procedures have still to be completed but the agreement is politically in the bag. The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, asserted that the two main political groups - the EPP and the Socialists - have stated their acceptance.
As far as I'm aware, just one significant political group - the Greens - rejected the compromise. Its two co-leaders have given the reasons for this. In the view of Rebecca Harms, Schulz's 'yes' is “an unacceptable abuse of confidence”; and in the view of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the option of spending as early on as the first two years almost all the appropriations dedicated to the fight against youth unemployment will have the result of nothing being left for the years to come. In Cohn-Bendit's opinion, “it is lamentable that the European Parliament's other political groups accept the compromise dictated by the heads of state or government”.
The democratic mindset of Ms Harms and Mr Cohn-Bendit will doubtless lead them to bow before the majority decision of the Parliament - a Parliament which is said to be proud of the concessions it has fought hard to win. The concessions will, according to Joseph Daul (EPP Group) enable the future policies of the EU to be financed. According to Hannes Swoboda (Socialist Group), “it's not ideal but it's acceptable”. For his part, Alain Lamassoure, the European Parliament's negotiator, underlined the commitment of the European Council to find - in the long term - EU own resources. These will enable the European budget to be separated from the national budgets, and will be a good solution to the problems.
As far as the reactions of the member states are concerned, let me mention what Mrs Merkel said - that in the absence of an agreement, thousands and thousands of people in Europe would lose their jobs. If only everyone could understand this…
B. Quality and risks of the common agricultural policy reform. Do I really need to highlight once again the significance of agriculture? In this current phase of world history, the survival of the human race - which continues to grow at a staggering rate (that is untenable in the long term) - depends on the safeguard of nature and the control of food supply. That - in a nutshell - is the enormous challenge that the CAP represents for Europe. And in addition to its significance, let me point out that, in the 2014-2020 financial framework, it is worth 38% of spending.
The debate - which has been long and difficult - on the future CAP has had aspects that are positive and others that have been less so. The ability for Europe to be able to feed its population itself is an obligation in today's world and some of the abuse of the past must be eliminated without remorse. If we consider that the new CAP does not recognise as active farmers those who occupy airports or sports grounds, that means that in the old CAP they actually were financed like this! And there was also the double funding, that was removed.
The current CAP also includes historical aspects and different treatment between old member states and newer ones - which will be revised.
The end result has been welcomed positively - both by the European institutions and by the national authorities. However, it has been strongly criticised by environmental NGOs. WWF has not held back in describing the CAP reform as a disaster from the point of view of land erosion, water scarcity and the decline in biodiversity (see EUROPE 10876). If this is the prospect for Europe, what can it be elsewhere? Of course, compromises were, and still are, unavoidable - but I don't believe that the European agricultural policy is the most dangerous or harmful in the world. This column will return to this tomorrow. (FR/transl.fl)