The Dutch Presidency of the Council is still working hard (ahead of it lies the delicate task of getting the magic formula on accession negotiations with Turkey approved by the Summit), and yet attention is already turning to the next presidency, that of Luxembourg, for those dossiers which aren't going to make a lot of progress in the last few weeks of 2004. Yesterday, I took stock of developments in the trade liberalisation dossier. Today, I would like to draw your attention to the even more fundamental dossier of the financial perspectives of the Union for the period 2007-2013.
The significance. It's fairly needless to stress the significance of these perspectives. On it depend the continuation of a cohesion policy worthy of the name, the defence of an agricultural policy which can save Europe from being transformed into a hotchpotch of countryside like the desert and cities full to overflowing, the relaunch of the research policy, the completion of trans-European networks linking East and West, North and South. We thought the EU had plenty of time, almost two years, to take position. And the memory of similar negotiations for the previous periods gave one to think that the compromises would only come through at the last minute, in amongst spectacular events like those which preceded the adoption of the two "Delors packages" and Agenda 2000. And now, on the other hand, the next President of the European Council (and of the Ecofin Council, and, for two years, of the Eurogroup), Jean-Claude Juncker, has voiced his agreement with the current Presidency, and his intentions of getting the vital unanimous agreement in principle through by 30 June 2005 (see our bulletin of 8 December, pages 9-10).
Three reasons for anticipation. The objective cited is to be confirmed this week by the European Council, if the draft "conclusions" of the Dutch Presidency are adopted (see yesterday's bulletin, pages 9-11). Clearly this kind of ambition will not be realised without Mr Juncker's consensus. According to explanations, and the odd leak from Luxembourg sources, there are several reasons to explain and justify the effort to anticipate the necessary political compromise:
- the "political timetable" for 2006 and 2007 will be extremely tough, with presidential elections in France and political ones in Germany and Italy. This is unlikely to be the best time for compromises involving extra effort or budgetary sacrifice;
- the absence of agreement in 2006 would cause a veritable budgetary imbroglio, as it would make it impossible to define the budget for 2007. We could consider extending the current financial perspectives, but this would not be compatible with the budgetary provisions of the Constitution, which would be entering into force about then (at least we hope it will…);
- the rules of regional policy and the budgetary aspects of the common agricultural policy (the "obligatory" nature of expenditure) will expire at the end of 2006, and it will be virtually impossible to replace them before having defined the new "perspectives", which will determine the volume of credits available for various actions or policies.
Differences of opinion. These are reasons enough for thinking that the best time for a decision on the next financial perspectives is the year 2005, and that the political agreement of principle should be made by the end of June, under the Luxembourg Presidency (the following Presidency will be the United Kingdom…). Mr Juncker, obviously, is aware of how difficult an undertaking this will be; but in 2006, it will be even harder. So he has to try. The current president of the Ecofin Council, Gerrit Zalm, said last week that he agrees, and the Summit is set to do the same this Friday.
The Dutch Presidency's report, summed up in this bulletin yesterday, sheds light on the extent to which opinions differ. Six Member States (Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria) confirmed their view that expenditure should not exceed 1% of the Union's gross product. The Commission wanted 1.14% (but rumour has it that Mr Barroso might agree to 1.07%). Everybody is aware of the need to increase the amount of money available for research and innovation, but there is total disagreement on where this money should come from. Several Member States believe that agriculture and regional policy could cover the costs of the operation but others are vigorously opposed. Politically, the biggest hot potato in this dossier is the replacement of the "British rebate" with a general mechanism to compensate countries whose net contribution exceeds a certain level.
In spite of everything, Mr Juncker does not despair. If Friday's Summit confirms the date and objective, he will be able to draw strength from common support. (F.R.)
Plenary session of the European Parliament