The Rocco Buttiglione affair is in danger of getting so out of hand as to eclipse other aspects of the hearings of the future European Commissioners. The Cardinal who presides over the "Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace" of the Roman Catholic Church spoke of "rich and powerful cultural, economic and political lobbies" motivated by prejudice against all that is Christian. The reactions to this statement often took on an equally apocalyptic tone. In such cases, I prefer to stick to the adage that the extreme doesn't count; furthermore, a compromise is being sought. But it would be a shame if these extremes overshadowed other questions raised by the hearings which merit further discussion.
No beating about the bush. The first of these questions relates to the Common Agricultural Policy and how it is paid for. The hearing of the future Budget Commissioner, Dalia Grybauskaite, may have left a more than positive impression; her performance went down very well with the MEPs (see our bulletin of 30 September, p.30). Mixed in with many firm and courageous statements, Ms Grybauskaite certainly didn't beat about the bush when it came to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): she described it as antiquated and outmoded, and said that it was shameful that Europe still used it. She believes that the 2003 reforms were neither radical nor fast enough, and that it was scandalous to devote half of the Community budget to the CAP. As far as I am aware, no MEP's hackles were raised by her words; but we must bear in mind that Ms Grybauskaite was addressing the EP Committee on Budgets, whose duties are well defined. The Agriculture Commissioner, Marianne Fischer Boel, may have been able to get a certain balance back, but she didn't (and was roundly criticised by the competent parliamentary committee).
Populist soundbites. I will endeavour to say what the MEPs neglected to. I think the CAP is in no bad place at the moment. The digressions and excesses of the past were largely corrected by the reforms; today's CAP bears no relation to the original one, the essential aim of which was to make Europe able to feed its people. Today, consumers' and tax-payers' interests are better protected than they were yesterday, and above all, the political decision-makers and, to an extent, public opinion seems to have become aware of agriculture's real role. Franz Fischler sums it up thus: "the farmers are not just the producers, but they also shape our cultural landscape". Europe's territorial balance, biodiversity (or what remains of it), the countryside, traditions, and the way Europeans live very much depend on activity in rural areas (activity also covering the forests, non-food productions, the upkeep of the countryside). To look at agriculture solely in terms of its economic output is short-sighted and unhelpful. Ms Grybauskaite's words are just populist soundbites; as far as the budget is concerned, they are untrue because today, agricultural expenditure takes up 43% of the Union's budget, which will fall to 33% by 2013. It substitutes national expenditure which certain Member States would not be able to cover themselves. Ask Poland, and tomorrow Romania, whether they would agree to a radical reduction of the CAP budget. The Budget Commissioner was quite right to voice her point of view; but the Commission as a College should base its policy on an overall view which has been quite differently thought out.
The theory that agriculture's money should be channelled instead into research, for example, is unrealistic because the orders of magnitude bear no comparison. With research, the objective is to bring the levels spent on it to 3% of European GDP. Obviously, the Member States themselves must make most of the effort, because the total EU budget is under 1% of GDP (and even the most ambitious plans only wish to see it raised to 1.14%). The money that could be saved on the CAP would be almost nothing, as a direct proportion, whereas re-nationalising agricultural expenditure would in practice spell the end of the common agriculture market, and to reduce the EU budget with nothing to make up for it from the national budgets would be a severe blow to European civilisation. This column has been following this battle for years; does it have to start again with every new Commission? Is President Barroso aware of what's at stake, and will he be able to put together a duo which is capable of the realism, conviction and efficiency of the Franz Fischler/Pascal Lamy double act?
Another subject I feel is worthy of immediate reflection is that of the autonomy of the development cooperation policy, and its relationship with trade policy and external relations in general, thus also the relationship between the Commissioners in charge of these sectors. I'll save that for tomorrow.
(F.R.)