I won't be doing the same as those who began analysing in detail the figures in the European Commission document on the 2007-13 financial perspectives. This document should first of all be assessed for what it is - a draft and message. The graphs containing figures are necessary but they'll change because they relate to the present. The real debate will not begin before autumn when everything will have changed: the new Commission will be up and running (with a new president and at least fifteen new Commissioners), parliament will have been re-elected, some current Heads of government will have gone and in 2005 the presidency will be British. Getting heated over the details, fighting over figures, calculating what region is in danger of seeing its subsidy reduced would mean losing sight of the bigger picture.
A seven point message. The draft and the message can be summarised in the following way:
- putting a 1% ceiling on the gross Union budget would cut off the wings of its ambition and it would not be coherent with the objectives set by Heads of governments themselves;
- radically reducing loans for agricultural and cohesion policies in order to have additional loans for other objectives is impractical;
- cohesion policy does not consist in a simple transfer of resources towards less well off Member States; it has other objectives and results, notably linked to growth and competitiveness in the Union. It represents an essential instrument of the Lisbon strategy;
- agricultural policy has to be preserved for the essential reasons of safeguarding nature, bio-diversity, landscapes and traditions, territorial balance and the food self-sufficiency of Europe. Due to reforms carried out or ongoing, its effective cost will gradually go down; in budget percentage terms it will only represent 26% of the total in 2013 (it was 60% in 1988). The remaining loans will go to rural policy, which does not affect farming but other activities to develop in rural areas which make up most of Europe's territory;
- the increase in loans for research, innovation and training is a unanimously recognised demand and a certain expansion is also necessary for fundamental objectives such as environmental protection and "citizenship, freedom, security and justice";
- if the EU seeks to play a role in the world and actively take part in efforts affecting humanity's future in keeping with European values, it has to have additional means in these areas;
- to avoid permanent quarrels in the future on net contributions and advantages to the different Member States, the EU has to set up equal systems on own resources and cost sharing. The Commission has therefore announced a document on budgetary income, as well as a general correction mechanism in the event of excessive costs incurred by a Member State.
Those who essentially find my summary a little dry can read the whole text of president Prodi's speech to parliament on Tuesday (his best speech in my opinion).
Predictable criticism. Mounting criticism should be neither surprising nor shocking. They are into the bargain, perfectly contradictory. Who would be surprised by the reactions of one or another of the different minister of finance? They are playing out their roles and we can understand their immediate worries. But when Hans Eichel calls for a revision "of obsolete priorities" (see our bulletin yesterday p 11), I have to ask myself if he is aware of the decision of the summit setting out agricultural spending till 2013? I think it is Rodrigo Rato's position is more reasonable and revealing. In the positions taken by the spokespersons of the different EP political groups (see our bulletin of 11 February p 8 & 9) are also completely understandable. Who would find it strange that the spokesperson for the Greens think that loans for the environment and for a greener agriculture are insufficient? Or that the spokesperson for the Socialists thinks that the Commission has "fallen into the trap" set by Member States. Or that the EDD "Europe of Democracies" wants a 1% ceiling for European economies?
The Commission has done its homework. All this is just the beginning of the debate, which will be a tough one. We only have to remember the battles over the two "Delors packages" to understand what's round the corner. But if in 2006 (there won't be any decision beforehand), the constitution is in force and growth is normal, getting agreement will be a lot easier. I think that the Commission has done its homework and that it has proved once again that it is indispensable, the only one up to representing the European interest, even if today it appears, according to the rather ungenerous definition of some diplomats, "weak and on the wane".
(FR)