Irony and historic reminders. The recent debate between EU finance ministers on the possibility and appropriateness of a "European tax" did not fully convince me. To oppose the project, some ministers used somewhat demagogic arguments, easily swallowed by public opinion, with the aim of, if not definitively, at least for a number of years, burying the whole idea.
The lack of enthusiasm by the people for new taxes, understandable and justified, was cited by several ministers, either ironically (Mr. Fabius observed that, among the many citizens' demonstrations under his window as finance minister, none had ever had as goal to ask for a European tax), or setting out historic examples concerning the effects of the announcement of new taxes: the American war of independence raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, the rebellion in the Netherlands against Emperor Charles Quint cited by Dutch Minister Gerrit Zalm… Yet, no minister can ignore that the European project does not involve an additional tax, but simply a new method of collection. Guy Verhofstadt wasn't wrong when he decided to eradicate the words "European tax" from his language, and replace them by the notion of "direct financing of the EU" (pay payments by citizens direct into the Community coffers), as opposed to "indirect financing" (passing, like today, through the budgets of Member States). The Belgian Prime Minister did not conceal that his choice of terminology was dictated by a desire to be wary: not to give public opinion the impression that the EU, already lacking in popularity, intended further delving into citizens' pockets.
Concealed motives. The statements of a certain number of ministers proved that his fear was well founded: he spoke of reflecting on a review of the "method" of financing, and the answer came back that citizens did not like new taxes: Ministers knew full well what it was all about. That's why I referred to a certain amount of demagogy: Ministers who used arguments which they knew were not relevant, hid their substantive opposition to the evolution on which they were being questioned behind fallacious formulas and examples. Why such opposition? I do not believe that this or that minister had previously made calculations on the accounting effect of the direct funding of the EU (impossible evaluation before the mechanisms have been defined); but some governments are doubtless not unaware of the fact that direct financing has a federal nature, and across the Channel they certainly did not forget that it would lead to the disappearance of the "British compensation". They preferred to speak of something else: of the inopportune message that would be addressed to the citizens, the need to focus on real priorities (economic reform, integration of the financial markets, growth, employment, investments), as if direct financing were incompatible with these goals or could harm them.
In fact, the ministers of Great Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland more or less explicitly considered that a debate on the subject was premature, to say the least. The French and German ministers, on the other hand, expressed no opposition to the principle of initiating the debate (and these are two backers of weight), and the Luxembourg Prime Minister strongly backed the project. In other cases, it was no easy to fathom out the ministerial message. Council President Didier Reynders simply said that for him the debate was not buried. While assuring that he kept in mind the need to avoid a revolution in the British Isles and a rebellion in the Netherlands, he confirmed that the problem of the "direct financing of the Union" certainly would be on the menu of the Laeken Summit.
Speaking of it in Laeken. Why have I placed emphasis on this issue, whereas most was said in the report published in our bulletin of 11 July? Because I believe that direct financing would represent progress for Europe (transparency, visibility, direct relationship with the citizen) and, especially, it would contribute to avoiding a quarrel on "net contributor" countries acquiring, in the next budgetary negotiations, the disagreeable character that it has had these past few years: negative for cohesion and good understanding between Member States, source of demagogic polemic and false information fed to the public. There is one contradiction: as long as citizens believe that most money paid to the EU serves to pay civil servants, their trips and their pensions (this is an indication to emerge from a recent Eurobarometer survey), nothing is possible. But if "direct financing" also represented an opportunity to make it known how most of European money is in fact used - to fund regions behind in development, aid for poor countries, maintaining diversified farming throughout the territory, and so forth -, then it's another reason for discussing it. And Guy Verhofstadt is right to keep this issue on the agenda for Laeken. (F.R.).