It would be easy…It would be easy (and gratifying for my “European image”) to write that Jean-Claude Juncker's compromise on financial perspectives for 2007-13 is too restrictive and that the minimum acceptable would be what was voted for by the European Parliament last week. But the situation is more complex. Parliament has done a remarkable job on this occasion. It resisted the temptation of cattle dealing and demagogy and approved a budgetary framework that is lower than the Commission's proposals, whereas in the past it would have tried to please everyone by agreeing to the demands of each of the political or national groups. By distributing the funding left and right, it has won sympathy from all quarters and from some its members can count on future electoral support. Neither Reimer Böge, nor the temporary commission chaired by the president of the Parliament Josep Borrell took the easy option in their plenary conclusions. The idea that Parliament's idea is as close as possible to the ideal compromise is not that unusual. It received praises from, for example, the president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso and the Luxembourg presidency represented by the European affairs minister Nicolas Schmit.
The President of the Council's task. But here's the rub: the task and responsibilities of the president of the European Council are not the same. He cannot propose what he thinks desirable or justified but rather, what is realistically acceptable to Heads of Governments (unanimity is necessary), while safeguarding the demands and goals. No government is going to see all its wishes come true. The European Commissioner for Financial and Economic Affairs, Joaquin Almunia observed the following in Juncker's compromise, “No Member State is satisfied with it. This is a good sign: if ten countries were happy, fifteen would see themselves as losers. For a good compromise, everyone needs to be dissatisfied with something”. Jean-Claude Juncker declared, “If the European Council, can agree, by a whisker, to agree on the presidency's proposals, it will show its sense of responsibility and intelligence. If it were unable to do this, the day will come when another European Council agreed on exactly the same solutions”. It is better to do this now, instead of putting the compromise off, which we could already have, and thus prevent Europe getting bogged down in a long crisis”.
This appeal to flexibility got some positive echoes, notably from the party of Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac (see this section in 8965) but reservations persist. Italy is threatening to use its veto over regional funding but we hope that this is only a tactical threat. Tony Blair has said that he will discuss the “British rebate” but on the condition that CAP funding is discussed and that his country's cohesion policy (the EU will only help the less prosperous countries. Countries whose living standards are above the Community average should look after themselves and their underdeveloped areas). At the same time, Juncker has reaffirmed that if the British question is put on the backburner, there will be no chance for an agreement. On Tuesday he is meeting Tony Blair in Luxembourg for a one to one meeting.
Research nests. If the summit gets a compromise, this will still need Parliament's backing. If not, the EU will not have any multi-annual financial perspectives but rather annual budgets, on which Parliament (almost) has the last word. What will Parliament be holding out on? The most sensitive area is research: the Lisbon strategy priority; it appears that some observers have been too penalised by the Juncker compromise. Let's be clear: cuts are expected compared with what's in the Commission's proposal but increases in relation to the current situation are noticeable. Research needs looking at closely, with the awareness of its importance and without any demagogy. Nicolas Schmit's warning to MEPs cannot be ignored: compared to the Commission's proposals, reductions are needed in all areas if we want to balance out the efforts demanded of Member States and get a figure that is acceptable all. What the people want is increasingly being underlined. This is also valid for those who believe that they are being called on to make too much of a financial contribution but we have to avoid going below what is indispensable for maintaining what is essential.
(F.R.)