British position and its repercussions. David Cameron's latest interview on the relationship between his country and the EU deserves a few comments. He notes that his fellow citizens are increasingly unenthusiastic about participating in the European Union. He, personally, does not say he is isolationist, but the danger exists that Great Britain could slip towards the exit. Nevertheless, he says: I don't want this to happen. He therefore advocates not shying away from the problems but discussing them openly at Community level - instead of pretending they don't exist. In other words, he recommends real negotiation on the modalities of British participation, before the national referendum that is planned for 2017 at the latest.
These assertions involve: (i) a two-speed Europe being increasingly inevitable if we want the UK to stay in the EU; (ii) Mr Cameron having spoken exclusively of Great Britain and never of the United Kingdom, which points to Scotland not figuring in his reasoning.
What illegal immigration sometimes hides. The EU of course has the duty of welcoming refugees who are fleeing conflicts or misery. Those who knock at Europe's doors must be helped. Yet the reasons which sometimes justify a certain amount of caution must also be taken into account. Take the case of Greece. Its citizens are subject to heavy sacrifices in order for their country to stay in the eurozone, and they are not able to welcome masses of refugees. And on a more general level, caution is sometimes required. It's an easy game to accuse the EU of a lack of generosity, its apparent goodness implying less noble interests.
Let me explain what I mean. Support for illegal immigration sometimes has a hidden agenda, such as having cheap labour for the underground economy or supplying labour for organised crime. The advantages for some are to the detriment of the whole population and the cost for the host countries is becoming very heavy. Those who faithfully fight for opening up to all refugees sometimes become the unwitting instruments of dubious objectives. And for some categories of illegal immigrants, it is easier to knock at the EU's door to obtain a welcome in tired old Europe than to take action so as to put an end to the unjustifiable and cruel conflicts at home. In principle, and without exception, I would favour a simple criterion - an open door to women and children but caution towards men in the prime of their lives.
Growing tension with Russia? Guy Vershofstadt, the leader of the European Parliament's ALDE Group, has been very firm. He has called for an extraordinary EU-Russia summit to be held in order to discuss human rights and democracy, believing that the list of anomalies (I'm using understatement here) in Russia is growing longer. Why do Moscow's authorities refuse to discuss their domestic affairs with the EU? Mr Verhofstadt has spoken of “serious cases of corruption and money-laundering involving fraudulent activities that affect the EU”, and he has called “on Europol, on the European Banking Authority and other institutions to investigate cases of corruption in Russia that have a link with the EU”.
This initiative is not only for the specific case of Alexeï Navalny. It has a general nature and can be added to the other positions - which have already been pointed out in this column - of Ms Dalia Gryabausité, President of Lithuania (a country which, as we are only too well aware, is currently chairing the Council of the EU). Grybauskaité is in favour of the EU tightening its links with the states of the Eastern Partnership, so that they can exit the Russian sphere of influence. At the same time, initiatives exist that aim to ask Russia to reduce the price of its oil and gas destined for the EU. And we also know that other differences between the EU and Russia continue in the trade domain.
A premature visit to Egypt. Given the seriousness of the situation in Egypt, Catherine Ashton has gone there personally. The initiative deserves praise - but the results are questionable. Was she wanting to meet ex-president Mohammed Morsi? The result was that “I am told he was well, that he was being well treated”. Quick elections? The answer: the process could take six months to a year. And so on and so forth. Ashton was able to meet the president, vice president, prime minister and a large number of ministers, and she even asserted that Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood party must participate in the future of the country. Not a word though, I believe, on the three key reasons for the current drama (see this column in EUROPE 10866).
What's my impression? Ms Ashton would have been better off delaying her visit. (FR/transl.fl)