Doing the impossible. Explaining what the three priorities of the Luxembourg presidency would be at the Council, Jean-Claude Juncker explained that this would involve doing what is possible for adapting the Stability Pact and revising the Lisbon strategy (see this section yesterday and the day before yesterday) and doing the impossible for obtaining a political agreement on new multiannual financial perspectives. It's obviously a tough gamble, almost hopeless at a glance, obtaining a political agreement by June, as he's set out. Those who have not forgotten the battles on the two “Delors packages” and that on Agenda 200 which followed, will be able to understand, as the definition on the overall spending of the Union for 2007-13, will be just as hard, if not more so. One only needs to point out that: a) the Commission proposed that the ceiling for spending be set at 1.14% of the Union's GDP, whereas six Member States said that it should not go above 1%; b) the cancellation of the “British cheque” is up for discussion, which London says is untouchable; c) the main beneficiaries of the cohesion policy are ready to accept most of the available resources in this section are directed to the ten new Member States (which have the right to the solidarity which less favoured countries have benefited from in the past) but they hope to attain a certain level of support; d) all Member States recognise the need so make more resources available to research and other priority areas but agricultural spending cannot be touched as it has been set till 2013.
Juncker says that “Member States have stuck to positions in a very strict and rigid way that they will find it difficult to change” (especially those who have referendums on the Constitution or elections). However, Juncker confirmed his objective to the European Parliament, explaining that in the event of failure, the Union will find it “impossible on a legislative and technical level to respond to the enlarged Union's challenges”. I underlined the word “impossible are it only indicates as risk and not a fact, and will be explained later on. This is all the president of the European Council said in Strasbourg on financial perspectives, without providing indications on his orientations or possible compromise, as he had done on the Stability Pact and revision of the Lisbon strategy. He simply asked the Parliament to contribute to “sparing Europe a long debate that would increase disputes and inflame the conflict”. We have to move to other sources as in some of the declarations or interviews made by Juncker had provided more comments. Hence:
1. Not to wait for 2006. The press release on his participation at the 13 January meeting of the Board of Governors of the European Central Bank (ECB) indicated that Juncker had told governors that if a political agreement were not forthcoming on financial perspectives before 30 June, “that adoption of different tributary instruments in the next financial framework for the end of 2005 and the carrying out in 2006 of indispensable preparatory work on implementation of the new generation of Community programmes would be very difficult”. On another occasion, he explained the same concept in different words: “if we do not reach an agreement in June, we will absolutely not be able to prepare the policies for 2007-13”.
2. The British cheque. Juncker declared that it would be necessary to, “assess the reasons for a British cheque in 1984, during the European Council of Fontainebleau, which I continue to call Fontainbluff, and the reasons, which today, can still be used for keeping it in force or launching a gradual process for dismantling it”. Jacques Rabier uncovered this tasty quote in the “Memoirs of Jean Monnet”: “The experience demonstrated that it is not good for the British to obtain particular conditions and a special situation, or even that they can hope to benefit from this”.
3. Replacement of the British cheque by a generalised mechanism benefiting all Member States that make net budgetary contributions above a reasonable level. Juncker said that “Most countries do not support such a mechanism. And I don't believe that we diminish the importance of mistake in the process by making it more widespread. “Reasons for analysing the refusal still remain.
4. Guarantee of agricultural aid till 2013. His declaration is as follows, “I don't intend to open this case, or even get my fingers burned by trying to open it. Everyone knew what it involved when we got this agreement in October 2002”. I recall that the cost of agricultural policy will, all the same, be lower as a percentage of the budget, falling from 45% to 38% of the total.
I don't know of any other indications from Mr Juncker and he will certainly remain discrete during negotiations (he's already begun his bilateral surveys), except if he has to make an opportune shake up. This is not in his character and he will not do it unless it really appears essential. (F.R.)