Look ahead. In his Paris speech, Romano Prodi looked ahead, as what he calls for is not for tomorrow. He feels that the Commission must be the economic speaker of the European Central Bank in order for EMU to walk on both legs, and no longer on one. He feels that the High Representative for foreign policy (Mister CFSP) must be a member of the Commission. He also calls for the financing of the EU to no longer be ensured by contributions from the Member States, but through a European tax. On the first point, his call confronts the Eurogroup position, which feels that this role should come to its President. As for Mr Duisenberg, he asserts "Mr Euro, its me", and he even expressed doubts over the representational nature of the acting President of the Eurogroup as he must not know that, when Mr Reynders speaks, he does so in the name of all of the Ministers of the Euro zone countries (the hypothesis that its speaker can be a European Commissioner, is even consider by him).
Over the issue of Mister CFSP, Romano Prodi underlined that it does not personally concern himself or Javier Solana: when it will be settled, they will both have completed their mandate. Also with regards to the European tax, the Commission President stated, two days after his speech in Paris that it will be necessary to calmly discuss it and that the debate will last "years".
A tax for clarity. This is the third point that raised the most comments, often positive, sometimes critical. In the United Kingdom, in particular, he was reproached for having raised it the middle of the elections so handing the gift of an additional point to the Eurosceptics. Though if the Commission President, before taking a stance or launching a project, had to be concerned with the election process underway here or there, he would never talk. Moreover he did not say anything that could affect the elections in the United Kingdom, as his plan does not involve in itself any increase in the transfer of resources from the member countries towards Brussels, no increase in Community spending. This is exclusively a change in method, moving from the present mechanisms - complicated and incomprehensible for the citizen - to a more transparent and more democratic system. The Europeans already pay for the EU, but they do not know how nor how much; recent studies have shown the extent to which the ideas on the "money of the EU" are false. People think that the European budget is used to pay civil servants, rents for the institutions, meetings, etc, while in reality nearly all of its is redistributed between the Member States for agricultural spending, structural financing, aids to third countries, for research. Moving towards a more transparent method is not only opportune, its is necessary.
Reaffirm the role of the Commission. Romano Prodi was right to reaffirm at this time, in the present debate ion the future of Europe, the vital role of the Commission in the institutional balance. It is not that the "Community method", based on the Council/Parliament/Commission triangle, was directly brought into question by a few Heads of Government, which spoke out, but several existing elements of concern. The Schröder project, by attributing to the Commission all of the executive power, risks emptying of content the Community action because the Commission cannot decide over everything alone without the Directives and the Council's support. The Jospin project debases the role of the Commission in comparison with that of the Council, which should according to the French Prime Ministers gather twice per month at the Heads of Government level (European Council) and have a permanent presence in Brussels. The danger that the Commission's policy area is reduces is real, which must be rejected not for reasons of prestige or presence, but because it would fall back into intergovernmental procedures (whose effectiveness has been proven over the centuries), and there would no longer be an institution responsible for general interest and with the right to initiative. Let us not put words into his mouth: Lionel Jospin did not say anything explicitly in this direction, he even cited the Commission as the guarantor of the general interest (see this section dated 2 June). Though it was opportune that the Commission President call in favour of the role of his institution in a few precise and significant areas.
The future financing, a debate to be opened. The reference to a European tax was even more opportune, as the battle around the future financing of the EU has already begun, and with great force. See the declaration by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs last April in Paris; see the Spanish demand for immediate guarantees on maintaining the structural funds; see German orientation in favour of dismantling of structural policy and the British one against CAP. Immediately open the debate on the possibility of resolving the problem of the financing of the EU, through a new path is thus a pleasant initiative, which could free the debate over the future of Europe from some of its poisons. (F.R.)