Re-establishing trust. Let me continue to swim against the tide. Systematic euroscepticism seems to me to be increasingly unjustified. Tomorrow's Europe is making progress from a threefold point of view: (i) the review of the main common policies - with the agricultural policy in the lead, the mythical CAP, and thus the strengthening of economic cohesion; (ii) the progressive firming up of monetary discipline and banking regulation; (iii) the battle against wasting resources from the Community budget.
Added to this recently has been the project for a European policy in the security and defence domain - a policy that would involve decisions of the College. A system of common statements and procedures already exists, but it is a case of a façade which disintegrates when the beautiful phrases and confabulations come to be translated into action. This could be seen with regard to the war in Syria - there were whole nights of discussions between ministers in order to finish up with what seemed like arrangements, although disagreements still continue on the substance. Right now, even this sensitive area of Community activity is beginning to move although we will have to wait for the specific summit at the end of this to see this more clearly.
In this general context, the growing punching power of the European Parliament should be underlined. Its agreement is nearly always obligatory in order to take action. In a few cases the Parliament is not able to amend a draft, but can simply accept or reject it. This ability in fact enables it to negotiate with the Council any project being developed, and to state its position before giving its agreement
Reason for pessimism. If this is the situation before the summer recess, why has this creative phase in European construction not been recognised or acknowledged by public opinion? The fundamental reason is evident - the effects of the path being taken are not yet visible and the period of sacrifice is not in the least bit over. Citizens are still living in the crisis phase - their reactions will become positive when the effects of what has been decided, or what is being developed, become visible, and when the innovations and reforms become operational. And this requires time.
The first difficulty lies, then, in the time needed for the innovations to take shape. The reform of the oldest of the European policies - the legendary CAP (common agricultural policy) is in the bag, but it will need an additional year to become operational in 2015. This is only one example.
The second obstacle in the face of public opinion lies in the habit of several national political forces to attribute the responsibility for their mistakes and weaknesses to Europe - it's Brussels' fault is a catchphrase widely used by those who do not respect the rules and disciplines that have been decided upon together. Added to this are the regular calls for resources from the European budget to meet national shortcomings - which is irresponsible and strange on the part of the member state parliaments and authorities because it is they who feed this budget, and they will continue to do so until the day the EU has its own resources. Unless the objective of one or other of these member states is to get the neighbour to pay…
It would be much more useful - for the countries that are in trouble and for Europe - for each to be concerned above all about controlling effectively the use made of Community funding!
What no one dares admit. The truth is that European funding is often badly used by its recipients. It is a shortcoming of long standing which is often criticised, but the situation does not improve.
The latest report from OLAF (European anti-fraud office) reported on irregularities of almost €400 million for 2012 (see EUROPE 10895). On first sight, Denmark would seem to be the country with the greatest number of fraud cases in the agricultural sector - but this is wrong. The truth is quite simply that this country came forward with the infringements it noticed of the CAP rules, which others don't do. OLAF's report points out: “Important recipients of EU resources, like Greece, France and Spain, show a very limited ability to detect fraud”. This is one of the reasons that led the Commission to propose the creation of a European public prosecutor (which some member states do not support) - a public prosecutor that would be vigilant in three areas: - fighting fraud in a similar way in all the member states; - providing for sanctions that are truly dissuasive; - accelerating the control procedure.
OLAF's report is just one example of the observation that certain member states are not managing European funding sufficiently and do not know how to define projects in line with prescribed objectives or to accomplish correctly projects that have been approved. Fighting against these shortcomings would have more meaningful and significant results than any artificial increase in commonly financed spending.
My conclusion is that accomplishing the reforms already decided and applying the new instruments already adopted or planned represents the basis for the recovery of the economic situation and for the return to growth and thus to confidence in the European construction.
Member states that do not share this mindset will remain on the sidelines. They could even distance themselves from the EU if they want.
Defence aspect: the Commission's document has initiated the debate.
The area of defence holds a very particular place. The EU itself, of course, does not have military desires, but the European Commission has highlighted and proved the link between industrial aspects and the Europe's weapons. President Barroso has stressed that the Commission is not proposing anything or demanding anything. His document constitutes a contribution to the reflection that is currently under way, ahead of the December European summit which will focus on military issues.
Barnier has been more explicit, pointing out that the EU's objective is to have real strategic, political and industrial sovereignty leading to a European defence. And he has added that, in his own opinion, the EU must be respected first of all by its allies, which is not always the case.
The Commission's document observes that the USA spends “seven times more on research and development in defence than the 27 member states of the EU together”. Barroso reiterated the importance of the security/defence sector as regards employment and financial clout, as well as its role for Europe's scientific, technical and industrial progress.
These remarks are evident. The point is not to discuss the economic and scientific clout of this sector but to know to what extent the European Commission is able to be involved. The initial reactions from the European Parliament are largely positive (see EUROPE 10896), with a few reservations of British source.
My impression is that the Commission's initiative is both acceptable and very useful. In four months' time, the heads of state and government will dedicate a special summit to defence (19-20 December). The Commission's document, which has been reported on at length in EUROPE 10894, and the explanations from Messrs Barroso, Barnier and Tajani (see EUROPE 10895), bring a whole host of useful elements to be deliberated at this special summit. We can only welcome, discuss and analyse this document, which the Commission has transmitted not only to the Council and the Parliament, but also to the European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions.
The debate is open and it will continue on its way. (FR/transl.fl)
Note: the full text of the Commission's document is published in issue 626 of our twice weekly publication EUROPE DIPLOMACY AND DEFENCE.