First repercussions. Moves by the president of the European Council to give some confidence to the EU represents a breath of fresh air in the heavy atmosphere that has been stifling the continent and it is with pleasure that I noticed them in the final comments of last week. This does not mean we can be optimistic about the possibility of erasing the negative repercussions of the rejection of the Constitution by two founding Member States. I mentioned (bulletin 8957) the two sectors where repercussions would be serious: financial perspectives and Common Agricultural Policy (there are others).
For the first sector mentioned, it is already the case: Jean-Claude Juncker himself admitted that hope for an agreement on financial perspectives for 2007-13 would be via a reduction in the original project. He admitted this in the most assertive of ways - by setting out European spending levels of 1.06% of Gross European Income (the most recent presidency compromise, see bulletin 8960). The difference with the position of the most restrictive Member States (1% ceiling) is 0.6% and EUR 40 billion over seven years in absolute figures (864 billion instead of 824). The Commission and the European Parliament will be speaking about the matter on Wednesday and will be requesting much more. It was not with a light heart that Mr Juncker made this choice - getting a realistic agreement, which has become a “burning obligation” and which will represent the first spectacular step towards Europe's relaunch by confirming its goals and programme for attaining them. The suggested compromise is, overall, sufficient for implementing the revised Lisbon Strategy and consolidating Europe's place in the world. The consequences of not obtaining an agreement would be much more serious than the budgetary final touches envisaged; the chances of an agreement at a higher level are practically impossible.
The crisis of solidarity. If I have to use a symbolic word for describing the rather lacklustre situation, I would refer to the disappearance of the word “solidarity” from the Community vocabulary. This was the key word in all former financial perspectives - those in the Delors 1 and 2 packages and those from Agenda 2000. Deterioration of the idea of solidarity is not exclusive to the EU; it's a clue to the crisis in society, demonstrated at national levels. Managers that undermine the companies they are in charge of by playing the “stock options” game or crazy amounts of redundancy money; shareholders who get record profits without making any investments; small independent unions which hold up a city or a country with their demands in the interest of a few dozen people; the abusive use of “vested rights” such as pensions at 55 years old at society's cost are just a few examples. We could also mention some of the farmers and civil servants or the despair of those afraid of losing their jobs or those who have been unemployed for years, which is much easier to understand than the selfishness of the well off. But damage at a European level is there: the affair of the so-called “Polish plumbers” (a myth without very much foundation), the reticence to fund underdeveloped countries and regions, the indifference about the concept of the European farming, the list goes on. Much of the referendum campaign was done through turning inward and a lack of vision, as if the countries of central and Eastern Europe were not soon to become an essential destination for industrial and agricultural products and services from the older Member States. It is true that some of the new Member States should understand that the call for European funding also means agreeing to other forms of solidarity -taxation, trade, politics, as soldidarity is a global concept and not just a budgetary one.
No threats of veto, no provocation. In current conditions, the most recent compromise on financial perspectives appears to represent, with timely adjustments during the negotiations, the maximum possible. By defending national budgetary balances, finance ministers are doing their jobs. But Heads of government should have a broader vision. Threats of the veto are not an acceptable negotiation tool (isn't that so Mr Fini?). No provocation either. Initial indications of the objectives of the British presidency of the Council (it begins on 1 July) suggest: fewer rules, fewer public subsidies, more liberalisations, more trans-Atlantic integration, more opening up in October of accession negotiations with Turkey. Is this really Tony Blair's programme. A little understanding of the respective positions is necessary.
(F.R.)