As the debate on the nature and future of Europe is already underway (see this column yesterday), we should take as close a look as possible at all positions, without being swayed by superficial affirmations of theoretical fidelity to the idea of European integration. In this latter exercise, Tony Blair seduced and, occasionally, convinced. He called for a frank, open yet dispassionate debate, which would not be "a mixture of insults and personal questions". Let's try to give him just that.
Sub-texts from the Summit. It is unquestionably true that criticism of the behaviour of the British delegation at the recent Summit, by other participants and by various commentators (myself included), took on particularly colourful tones which did not respect for norms of "diplomatic language" and laid the blame for the breakdown of the Summit at Mr Blair's door. The President of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, then explained his choice of language to the Parliament: "early on 18 June, after the European Council, I was very sad, sad that I had not been able to stop the Europe from plunging into crisis. I was sad and I showed it. I sometimes read that I did not act diplomatically. But I have no desire to be diplomatic when Europe is in crisis. No desire at all (...). We are not machines, we are human beings, with disappointments and despair". This requires no comment, other than to confirm that the breakdown of the Summit was down to British behaviour. I am aware that various political groupings feel that Tony Blair was quite right and that it is, in their view, a positive thing that the "financial perspectives" on the table were not approved. I am simply saying that British demands led inevitably to stalemate, because you can't change the structure of Community expenditure overnight: this calls for long and involved reflections on negotiations.
The "declaration" in all its glory. A few days later, in a charm offensive at the European Parliament, Tony Blair said that he had "never said that we had to put an end to the CAP right now, or that it had to be re-negotiated forthwith". His objective was to ensure that the process was started, to allow the new budgetary structure to be in place in the second half of the period covered by the forthcoming financial perspectives (2007-2013), "otherwise, we would all be here again in 2014 with no basic changes decided on, much less applied". Are we to understand from this that a commitment in principle by the Summit to look into desirable changes would have been enough for him? No, he wanted more than that.
Why am I hammering this point home? Because the President of the European Council, going beyond the generally-respected habits of reserve on debates between the Heads of State and Government, laid out in detail before the European Parliament the "declaration" which he had proposed to add to the compromise (with figures). Here it is: "we must think harder about how the European budget meets the future challenges faced by the European Union and how it answers the priorities of our citizens. This overall reflection will lead to a reform on all aspects of the budget". Mr Juncker added: "all aspects of the budget, that includes the common agricultural policy". A vague future prospect? Once again- no. The draft declaration stated that on the basis of the report to be drawn up by the Commission, "the European Council would take the appropriate decisions, including possible changes to the financial perspectives for the period 2007 2013 ". Mr Juncker even said: from 2009. And he commented: "I wanted to make this clear because nobody has told you this, and because you might hear another explanation in the near future".
Three essential comments. And so, the facts are clear: Tony Blair is not satisfied with keeping the "British rebate" at its current level, without degressivity, and with the Summit' s commitment to re-examine the workings of the European budget with the possibility of introducing changes as soon as halfway through the period 2007-2013. He also intends to make the most of France's relative weakness after the rejection of the Constitution. Obviously, these facts do not detract from the right of Tony Blair and anyone who shares his views to think that the proposed financial perspectives were bad ones. But I would add three comments:
1) with a couple of last-minute changes, the Juncker compromise had been accepted as it stood by "at least twenty Member States out of twenty-five" (in the words of Mr Juncker) and by the European Commission (which also put forward a declaration similar to that of the Presidency);
2) the rejection of this compromise cancelled out the political and psychological effects which would have made it possible to explain to the general public that, although the Constitution was on hold, Europe maintained its ambitions and objectives intact. The media swamped the public with information and commentaries on European crisis, going as far as to voice doubts that the Union could survive at all;
3) the rejection of the Juncker compromise could be very damaging to the new Member States. If the current blockage is not quickly sorted out, these countries will not be able to benefit from either the regional funding or the agricultural payments they are entitled to from the beginning of 2007.
It is true that Mr Blair did not call for reductions to the regional support promised to them, but in the absence of financial perspectives, the application texts will not be ready in time, and the annual budget regimes to be agreed to by the Parliament will not be able to bring in the new payments. As for agricultural payments, facts prove that these are urgent and essential for the territorial balance and the protection of nature in Poland and many other countries of central and eastern Europe. The hypothetical dismantling of the CAP would be a disaster for them.
I consider that these three preliminary comments are very important, even though Tony Blair' s behaviour indicates that the way he sees things, they are negligible or, at the very least, secondary.
Three gaps in the Blair project. Getting down to brass tacks, are the plans for Europe which stem from the programme-speech of the British Prime Minister positive and viable? I am not so naive as to try to give a full answer to this question in half a page of this column. This will be the subject of a major debate which has just opened, and will involve people far better qualified, wiser and more skilful than a modest commentator. So I would just like to make a few observations.
A. Tony Blair's presentation of Europe's current faults and shortcomings makes a fundamental error we see all the time: it apportions responsibilities to Europe which it does not in fact have. A small example of this: it is true that it is sad and humiliating to note that the continent which gave the world the notion of "university" and which dominated this field for centuries, today has only two universities in the list of the top 20 in the world (both of which are British). However, this situation has got nothing to do with the community budget. Europe does what it has to do: the Erasmus programme, the Jean Monnet chairs. Blaming the EU for the decline of certain national universities is nonsense. This is just an example of a broader discourse which had been developed on the subject of the Lisbon Strategy: it is not up to the Union to carry out the reforms which are needed in the individual Member States. The revision of the Lisbon Strategy is based on national responsibilities and on the involvement of parliaments and civil society in each Member State. Europe's job relates to the broad guidelines and coordinating the policies to be implemented. The EU's budgetary contribution is not the be-all and end-all: it may be indispensable in some cases (the trans-European networks and various research projects, to name but two); it is secondary to reforms. The contents of policies depend on the choices people make at election time; the country where most people vote socialist will not have the same ideas on this as its neighbour which votes in a right-wing government. It is certainly not the leader of the European country with the oldest and best-functioning democracy (I'm talking about the United Kingdom) who's going to deny the importance of national elections. The efficiency of reforms and the cleansing of public finances are not necessarily linked to political choices. For a while now, the trend has been towards reducing the State's share in national GDP, but the Nordic Member States have managed to clean up their economies whilst increasing the percentage of GDP entrusted to the State and keeping their social democrat reforming spirit intact. The way public money is used, the efficiency of the administration in the absence of corruption are determining factors in success.
B. Referring to the dissatisfaction of the people and their protests against Europe as if they all tended in the same direction is a superficial analysis, and at the end of the day, a populist one. In France, for example, the main criticisms made of Europe was that it is too liberal and does not do enough to protect against globalisation; Tony Blair's recent comments will not stir up any excitement among French citizens who voted against the Constitution.
C. Most pro-Europeans feel that the best way to face up to current challenges lies in a reasonable increase of the EU's budget. Tony Blair made no reference to this in his speech, and he did not have to tackle it before the Parliament either, because none of the MEPs asked him outright whether he is sticking to his guns over the budgetary ceiling of 1% of EU revenue. It was a journalist who put the question to him, in the end press conference, and Tony Blair said quite clearly that he had not changed his mind about this ceiling.
Over the next few days, I will try to summarise a few choice significant reactions to the "programme for Europe" of the British Prime Minister. (F.R.)