London calls for radical change. Everything moves faster than foreseen. The United Kingdom proposed a radical cutback of European regional policy (by 50% in budgetary terms, according to initial estimates) and Germany could move in the same direction. This section has already issued a few warnings: careful, the member states (present and future) reticent towards global community solidarity and who oppose the "federal" management of certain European competences must not imagine that the sinking of European integration would by miracle leave a few achievements of a federal nature afloat, such as direct subsidies from the community budget to farmers and automatic rights to regional finance (see in particular this section last 10 January). However, I expected this battle to first take place within the Convention, and that the governments await the Commission documents on cohesion policy and on the "post-2006" financial package before taking official positions.
Yet, the British government skipped these stages (see bulletin of 7 March, p. 10), which fits with its fundamental position on the nature of the EU. The others are those being incoherent, those who, reticent towards development in the direction of a political Europe, nevertheless call for the automation of financing. The British position can be outlined in four points:
The EU will define a European framework for a decentralised cohesion policy, with a few common principals (for employment, against social exclusion, in favour of sustainable economic development);
The implementation of this policy would, crucially, be entrusted to national and regional authorities from the member states, putting an end to "decades of centralisation".
Community finance would be reserved to the poorest member states (Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Greece and Portugal) to help concretise the common framework, and to a few "small initiatives" for cross-border cooperation between other member states.
National and regional authorities would enjoy greater autonomy in granting state aid compared to the present situation.
The eloquence of a (possibly false) anecdote. We see it, it is a direction that radically distances itself from that detailed by European Commissioner Michel Barnier (see our bulletin of 31 January, page 9) and which emerged from the Brussels-based seminar on 17 February. It will contribute towards the unravelling of Community solidarity. By placing emphasis on the autonomy and identity of the states, the concept of a European territory fades. It is not for nothing that the British document calls for its foundation on national GDP to determine the countries that are entitled to European support, and not on regional GDP: if the GDP of a member state exceeds 90% of the Community average, it must personally deal, using its own resources, with the backward areas. The British move could even be supported by some of the founding nations, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Chancellor Schröder will refuse, for the next period of "financial perspectives" (2007 to 2012, in principal) a significant effort as is presently the case, which he accepted because at the time Germany held the EU Presidency during the Summit and that the Presidency must facilitate compromise. However, Germany requested, and received, a modification to the order of Presidencies in order to avoid its turn arriving for a second time at the time for approving multiannual financial decisions. Its budgetary strategy requires a reduction in its burden, and it will do so all the more so if the countries reticent towards political solidarity are numerous. According to certain rumours, Chancellor Schröder answered his partners who questioned the result of his last meeting on Iraq with Mr Aznar: "the result? "It is the death of the cohesion funds" (of which Spain is the main beneficiary). The anecdote is possibly wrong, but it is revealing in terms of attitudes. Also recall the phrase of Dominique Villepin: "the Union is not a till". This seems to mean that only a Europe accepting solidarity and integration may aspire to a budget of a federal kind and size.
An aid, not a policy. The joint financial effort in favour of backward regions is the most spectacular element of this dossier, but it is not only a question of money: what is at the root of this, is the federal nature (or community nature: the two adjectives are sometime equal) of cohesion policy. Either way, the EU will continue to help its backward regions and farmers, but in a Europe of reduced solidarity. The beneficiary countries will no longer hold automatic rights and will have less weight in the definition of rules and in management. This would be aid, not a policy. (F.R.)