Tony Blair's real aim. Once again, the pessimists were right. It is not so much the collapse of the negotiations over the Financial Perspectives in itself that is so serious, since such negotiations are tricky by their very nature and always take disagreeable turns (it is not the first time that an additional summit is required to strike agreement), but rather the fact that the crisis over the Constitution and the weakening of France in Europe have been seized upon to try and change Europe in the direction of the British model and kill off the Common Agricultural Policy. During the negotiations, after the United Kingdom was offered guarantees that a stabilised British rebate would continue and after the final gesture by the countries of central and Eastern Europe and others (prepared to give up some of the funding foreseen for them in order to make agreement easier to reach), it became clear that Tony Blair's aim was not (not only) to keep certain budget benefits, but to launch and conduct himself, as President of the European Council over the next six months, a less institutionalised free market vision of Europe without political unity or a well defined social model, such as the UK has always defended. The President of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, and the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, made it explicit. They said some Member States had not had the political will to reach agreement. Juncker had no qualms about suggesting the collapse had been worked at, saying that people making a reworking of the EU's entire budget as a precondition for agreement 'want failure' (see below for Juncker's other comments, to be read in their entirety). The British prime minister was right when he said on Friday that he was not isolated - it is known that some other Member States have always had similar ideas, and the Netherlands, almost leaving behind what Benelux used to be, joined them. Blair is right too to have his own vision of Europe - he is just as entitled as anyone else to fight for his beliefs.
Lack of reaction. The depressing part of this is the lack of reaction faced with the new direction Europe being traced out for Europe and the putting up with the prospects of seeing the Common Agricultural Policy demolished. The countries of central and Eastern Europe should have understood that the CAP is even more vital for them than regional funding. The positive impact of the first partial application of the CAP is already obvious throughout Poland. It is the CAP that will protect their territorial equilibrium, environment and countryside. Regional finance is important of course, and they are entitled to it, but their traditions (before the Second World War, the former Czechoslovakia was more industrialised than Belgium), productive education systems (probably better than in many of the old Member States) and skilled workforce are sufficient in themselves to attract investment, and there are EIB loans on top of that. European support is essential above all for including them in pan-European transport and other networks and to clean up and re-launch rural areas and the CAP is the key instrument here. Perhaps they understood this, and it was this understanding that probably made them prepared in the end to turn their backs on some funding. But among the old Member States there was such short-sightedness and going along with the highly inept and outdated slogans put forward by Tony Blair to criticise the CAP! I will not comment any further just now on farm issues - I will devote all my next editorial to the matter.
Continuing with those who are willing. Chancellor Schroder said those responsible for the collapse would have to answer to history, adding that Europe could only survive as a political union and not as just a market with a few instruments without solidarity between the strong and the weak. Jacques Chirac suggested all those who favour a politically ambitious Europe of solidarity going back to work. Jean-Claude Juncker said he had been ashamed when he heard all the new Member States, one after another, saying they were prepared to give up some of their financial benefits. Maybe that was a diplomatic way of saying that the behaviour of the British prime minister, along with a few others, was deplorable? If his comments can be interpreted in this way, I agree. And I hope that the countries that have kept their ideals and ambitions, whether old or new Member States, can between them re-launch the European unification enterprise.
(F.R.)