Much has already been written about the budgetary proposals put forward by the European Commission on 2 May, particularly by Agence Europe, which provided an exhaustive run-down of the ideas that shape the envisaged multiannual financial framework for the period 2001-2027 (see EUROPE 12013). Nobody mentioned the fact that the European Union thus remains the worthy heir of the Soviet Union, which also liked to adopt five-year plans setting out the economic targets to meet. European budgetary planning, for its part, is called for by states that are always attentive when it comes to giving money to a ‘Europe’ that does not operate in their interests alone, but in their interests AND those of their partners.
The determination of the Juncker Commission to secure new resources should, therefore, be a huge relief to anyone who, like many members of the European Parliament, have long felt that relying on national contributions plays into the hands of Eurosceptics and all those dreaming of Europe as a vassal state, in the pocket of the capitals – by which they mean their own capital, obviously.
As yet, many critics have paid little attention to this, choosing instead to condemn the lack of ambition of budgets capped well below the 1.2% of EU gross national income mark; they are quite right. Others express concern at the sweeping cuts to which the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the instruments at the service of social and regional cohesion may fall victim; they are not wrong. These are all sensitive issues over which battles will, no doubt, soon be fought. But they are by no means the most important point.
Politically, the most important point lies in the Commission’s proposal to make its budgetary provisions into an instrument to enforce the rule of law. The College presided over by Jean-Claude Juncker has shown much creativity on this score and, more importantly, it has shown courage, even daring. In this particular instance, it has shaken off the political correctness that has too long meant that the Commission goes out of its way to avoid upsetting the national governments, even when, in words and in deeds, these governments work to thwart the European cause and the European project, which is to build a Union that is fully democratic and in harmony in each of its component parts.
Today, in some member states, democracy and the rule of law, human rights, the protection of minorities and the freedom of the press are undeniably struggling a bit or, in some cases, under threat. In the higher echelons of the EU, some are very worried about this; others choose instead to look the other way, pointing out that a bit of baseness and a few compromises are inevitable in (party) politics and, on the surface at least, they are not worth getting worked up over.
In this context, when it comes to ensuring that the member states continue to keep faith with the values they had to embrace in order to gain admittance to the European club, the European Union is powerless. And the bright idea of the Belgian foreign affairs minister, relayed by the country’s prime minister, Charles Michel, to the European Parliament last week, will do little to put the situation right: a “peer review” of the rule of law in EU countries (see EUROPE 12014) will do nothing but sweep the problem under the rug of the respectability of 27 governments, since on any playing field, you need an arbitration body that is both impartial and independent.
Hitting the national leaders who are slipping a bit when it comes to respecting the values of the EU in the wallet is an iconoclastic idea which has the merit of putting the EU’s arbitration institution right at the centre of the game. In this way, the Commission acknowledges that for as long as a right of veto is all it takes to put the kibosh on any kind of penalisation, it will be virtually impossible to trigger article 7 of the Treaty to put these errant countries back on track. With regard to this, we will be better served by those in ministerial circles with long memories than those whose memories are fading, who have forgotten the risks to democracy of any infringement of rule of law.
These include the ‘watchdogs’ of European construction, Paul Collowald and Jean-Guy Giraud, who can remember article 44 of the ‘Spinelli’ Treaty. Approved by the European Parliament in 1984, it made provision for the Court of Justice to note any violation of the fundamental values, with no ministerial interference, and for the sanction to be decided upon by the European Council, with no possibility of playing a veto. This is what would have given more power to those responsible for safeguarding the values that are supposed to be the cement that binds the EU together.
With its most welcome idea, the Commission has also taken pains to state that it will make sure it will not penalise the citizens of the defaulting countries, but their governments. This is a good thing because in many countries, you are more likely to come across Eurosceptics and Europhobes in the governments and political life in general than in society. One day, the European Council would do well to remember this, as the Juncker Commission is calling on it to do.
Michel Theys