Dishonest pessimism. We all know how it goes: European unity is crumbling away, euroscepticism is going from strength to strength. You hear it wherever you go. But this familiar refrain is not always a negative thing: it has already provided food for thought, leading to the revision of several common policies and innovations which are gradually taking shape and becoming visible. As the effects are not immediate, some of the media, looking for a bit of sensationalism, are still laying emphasis on the differences of opinion and the failures. However, the EU is entering a positive phase. The systematic pessimism is dishonest.
Eurosceptics disagreeing among themselves. Over at the European Parliament, the swelling of the Eurosceptic ranks is not an anomaly; as soon as they began to emerge, it was quite as it should be that they be represented and have the right to express themselves. They demonstrate that the Community institutions are not some kind of club reserved for those who are faithful to European integration. It has, however, been observed that the Eurosceptics are not compact; they are highly divided and remain in the minority. The EU is a genuine democracy, its parliamentary assembly represents all views. And if, in spite of everything, a country would prefer to leave it, the door is open.
Russia: relaunching dialogue. On Tuesday next week, Italy takes over the Presidency of the EU and its government has prepared (and discussed with the President of the Republic, Mr Napolitano) the keynote address to be made by the Prime Minister, Matteo Rienzi, before the Parliament on 2 July. According to indications which have filtered through from Rome, the passage on Russia will indicate that the Italian Presidency encourages the EU to seek ways of relaunching dialogue and of taking the opportunities to move the strategic partnership with Moscow forward, if the general context makes that possible. The intention of working together appears quite clear.
Clarity over Russian gas. The uncertainty over the transit of Russian gas via Ukraine has had enormous knock-on effects on the whole of the energy supply of the EU. A third country, Serbia, is also directly involved in the South Stream gas pipeline and the colossal companies involved in this project require clarity. The European Commission took a firm stance to ensure that Community rules are followed. However, the reality goes beyond the legal aspects; the European summit to open this Thursday must and should clarify the situation and take position clearly and unequivocally.
NATO needs to work on its transparency. Issue 709 of our twice-weekly publication Europe Diplomacy & Defence reported on the position of the Court of Auditors of the Netherlands on the clarity of NATO expenditure. NATO should publish consolidated accounts, providing an overview of the millions of euro of public money spent. The Dutch Court of Auditors once again spoke out, as others have done in the past, against the scant available information on the annual revenue, expenditure and achievements of NATO; of the 48 entities of the organisation located in Brussels, only eight are very transparent, whilst the others are opaque to very opaque. Obviously, the military expenditure is not in question, but it is unjustified for there to be no clarity on the expenses of the international secretariat, other civilian entities and the special allocation funds. The Algemene Rekenkamer of Den Haag also feels that there is no justification for the absence of clear data on the financial contributions of each ally.
Greece and the euro. This column has frequently taken a contrarian stance on Greece's membership of the euro zone. I reiterate that a country which fails to respect its disciplines, or even to give the impression of being able to do so, should leave. Other member states have slipped a little, but then went on to observe the necessary discipline to get the situation back under control, with the necessary support. Greece has not been able to do this, it has prolonged and even increased its shortcomings, despite considerable assistance. It should have reverted to its national currency and devalued it, which would have been better for its population now (the wealthy, bankers and speculators aside). I still think that the situation cannot be recovered and that the next pseudo-effort at recovery will be just as ineffective as the previous ones.
EU unmanageable? And to conclude, an unpleasant question: how far can the EU agree, without losing its character and the possibility of functioning effectively? Can it open the door to all candidates who knock on it? Is it possible to envisage a regime of close links without the prospect of accession? Beyond certain limits, the EU would become unmanageable, from a budgetary and financial point of view as well as in terms of its functioning and management. (FR)