The Commission's spectacular step. Hours before the summit was due to open, the messages sent out by official circles on the "financial perspectives" were partially contradictory, and it's hard to tell just how big a role tactics play in the different stances. On Wednesday, after a tricky internal debate, the European Commission made the spectacular step of declaring itself prepared to accept and support the compromise of the Presidency of the Council, on condition that the Heads of State and Government would accept a meeting at a later date to finalise the figures. President Barosso explained the reasons for and the significance of this attitude. The Commission feels that planned allocations for research and other "future policies" related to Europe's competitiveness are not enough for the ambitions the EU has set itself: spending 3% of European revenue on research; bringing to 3 million students a year the number of beneficiaries of the Erasmus programme; completing the trans-European networks which have already been decided on, etc. At the same time, it feels that an imperfect agreement is better than no agreement at all. But seven years is a long time; the EU can't shut itself up in a budgetary cocoon until 2013. This is why the periodic review clause of 2008 or 2009 comes in so handy. The Commission won't have been overjoyed to have retained this position, which will oblige it to make choices between the different outcomes planned (particularly in the field of research) and dropping the number of them. If it has agreed to it, it is because it feels that political agreement on the financial perspectives 2007-2013 is the best possible response to the current crisis; without an agreement, the EU would be grind to a halt.
Excessive dramatics? The Commission's message is loud and clear: compromise straight away, even if it's not perfect. This isn't the same message some of the Member States are putting out. Instead, they give the impression that they want to prepare Joe Public for negotiations to break down. They regret the "excessive dramatics" of the June deadline; the need is not so pressing as it is made out to be. In their view, the end of June is not the last chance saloon; the Union has another year before it is obliged to use the "provisional twelfths" for its funding and, under these circumstances, it would be better to delay the budgetary decision to another Summit than to reach an agreement which does not fulfil the necessary conditions of fairness and balance. The European Council should not, this Friday and Saturday, launch itself into a long and disagreeable negotiation, which would only leave bitterness and rancour; it should try to see if a compromise will be possible on Friday, and if it isn't, set a date for an additional Summit (in October, for example). By then, we'll be able to see whether London is any more inclined to put the "British rebate" on the table and France any more prepared to discuss the funding of the CAP (the 2002 agreement on this was reached unanimously, and unanimity is required to change it), see whether some of the obsolete regional funding could be replaced by the new Rural Development Fund, look at the real effects of partial co-funding of agricultural expenditure, and so on. When all the elements are on the table, it will be easier to reach a good compromise. What role do tactics play in this position? We'll know tomorrow. It's pointless to state that the Jean-Claude Juncker does not share this point of view, continuing to feel (that with a certain amount of scepticism) that political agreement this week is indispensable.
Breathing-space on Constitution acquired. The "Constitution" plank of the European Council is less controversial, not because common views on the future are taking shape, but because the need for a breathing space has now been acknowledged. Those who feel that it is necessary to stick to the planned timetable for national ratifications (including the three presidents Mr Juncker, Mr Borrell and Mr Barosso) now see the point of the objection: you can't ask the people to vote if you can't tell them for sure that the Constitution is still alive. People will think: if I vote for it, will it be able to enter into force, and if it can't, what's the point? If this text is dead (and there are a lot of MEPs saying that it is), how do you get people interested? It's up to each Member State to choose its own strategy. The Summit's job, for the time being, will be to find the appropriate words to say that each Member State remains master of its own ratification, and that we are starting to think about the lessons learned from the French and Dutch votes. This breathing space thus becomes official doctrine. The Commission has announced a "roadmap" and documents on the central issues: what changes must be made to the European model of society to safeguard it? What are the Union's borders? The reflection should not be the exclusive domain of the European institutions, but be rolled out in all the Member States, with the involvement of the social partners and public opinion. This is the new challenge of an unpopular Europe. (F.R.)