Something is moving. We all know the refrain: the best way to relaunch European integration and win back the support and sympathy of the people is to take action, by proving through example that Europe's actions are positive for the citizens. The broad outline must wait for the outcome of the reflection decided upon by the European Council and the decisions on the financial perspectives 2007-2013 and on the future of the Constitution. In other fields, progress is already possible. It is not easy to capture public opinion when you're talking about works in progress or projects in their gestation period; but sometimes the impact could and should be immediate. Such as? The coordinators appointed by the Commission to supervise and facilitate the completion of the trans-European transport networks decided upon as a priority for the EU started their work last week.
How many years have people been talking about these networks? The first plan for European infrastructure with partial Community funding goes back to the White Paper of Jacques Delors! Since then, ideas have been honed, the support of all the institutions and consultative bodies of the EU has been won, the priority projects have been chosen, an initial timetable has been drawn up, figures have been brought to co-funding from the Community budget, the regional and local authorities in question have become deeply committed, such complicated aspects as setting tariffs and public/private partnerships have been explored in detail, certain projects have been started and there are even some which have been finished already, despite the delays which have built up. It could now be said that the usefulness and efficiency of the plan, and the need to act at European level, have been taken on board by the media and by public opinion. It is true that in the vital field of funding, there are still a few clouds on the horizon, due to the uncertainty surrounding the Union's budget for 2006 and, even more so, the blockage on the financial perspectives 2007-2013. But vice president Jacques Barrot was quite right not to wait for the budgetary spat to be cleared up and to launch the expected political message, with the agreement in support of the Commission.
Why am I talking about a political message? For three reasons:
1. Responsibility of the Heads of Government. The Council (on the 2006 budget) and, most of all, the European Council (for the multi-annual financial perspectives) must face up to their responsibilities. They must, for the main part, agree to the financial allocations earmarked for the trans-European networks. These are not pie in the sky figures the Commission has called for at the last minute as some kind of over-bid. The 20 billion EUR for the period 2006-2013 has been agreed to by the European Parliament and the Luxembourg Presidency retained them in substance in its draft compromise. The reason for this is very simple: without the financial support of Europe, the projects agreed on by the Summit in 2004 have no chance of being completed within a reasonable timeframe. Only the figure indicated will allow European co-funding to be brought to a level of 30% of the cost of these projects, and up to 50% for cross-border sections, which are harder to pay for at national level but are the most precious from a European point of view. The European contribution will be shored up by money from the Structural Funds (in regions lagging behind, a proportion of their credit can be used to help pay for these projects), and by loans from the EIB (European Investment Bank).
2. The significance of the projects. The 30 priority projects chosen are essential for the success of the Lisbon strategy, and thus for the competitiveness of the European economy. They will help to get rid of the bottlenecks which are harmful to the functioning of the single market, with negative repercussions on trade, on several essential economic activities and on the environment. As Jacques Barrot put it, Europe cannot become competitive unless the transport networks are complete. To this economic significance is added social and environmental significance. Anybody travelling on European roads will be fully aware of the current shortcomings and permanent traffic jams: accidents and deaths, permanent tension for drivers, delays, pollution of the air and of nature. And the isolation of vast swathes of remote areas of the Union is well-known.
3. Impact on public opinion. The scope and ambitions of certain projects are liable to capture the imagination of public opinion. You only need to look at the maps of the railway projects. Project number one, which Karel van Miert is looking after, starts in Berlin, goes via Munich, crosses Austria, dissects the Alps and then enters Italy, of which it runs the whole length. Project number six, which has been entrusted to Loyola de Palacio, goes right across the width of Europe, from Lyons (via the Alps) to Turin, then Venice, where it goes off towards Slovenia and Hungary to reach the border of Ukraine. Project number three, for which Viscount Davignon is responsible, will cover the whole of the Iberian peninsula (Porto-Lisbon-Madrid-Barcelona) to reach Nimes via the Pyrenees, and a second branch will go from Madrid to the Basque country to reach Bordeaux and Tours. And the Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava rail trunk?
And the one that leaves from Warsaw, crossing the Baltic states with a sea link to Helsinki? And the Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Dresden line? Not to mention the sea motorways, which have given rise to so much interest and so much hope...
The role of the coordinators. The six coordinators, who were appointed by the Commission together with the Member States further to consultation of the European Parliament, have held a meeting (see our bulletin 8996). Five will take on the direct responsibility for the most spectacular railway projects, the sixth that of the cross-cutting project. Their role is essential because experience has shown just how badly such a complex network needs to be followed up, step by step. The first job is to protect each project from national and local pressure and from possible electoral contingencies. Jacques Barrot has forearmed himself against this risk, by deciding that no coordinator could share the nationality of the Member States directly affected by the project he or she was responsible for. This is a wise precaution to avoid any accusations, gossip or insinuations, but is in fact superfluous because the coordinators appointed are not, to my knowledge, the kind of people to give in to pressure. As a reminder: Karel van Miert once chaired the high-level expert group in charge of drawing up the list of priority projects, and he did not select the railway line linking the three "capitals of Europe": Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Belgium, his country of origin, wanted this project to be included, as did Luxembourg and France, but in a quieter way, and as did the Commission in itself, in a more or less veiled way. It did not work. Karel van Miert felt that European money should not be used to make it easier for Community civil servants to get from one place to another and that the three countries in question could pay themselves to modernize a route which already existed. The result is that if you look at the total list of the priority projects, you will not find that particular project.
Three pieces of old wisdom. Over the years, I have seen three of the coordinators in action in the posts they held as European Commissioners. Etienne Davignon is one of the "myths of Europe" (this is not my definition, it was coined by a young diplomat from a country of Central Europe who, for his admission exam to the Ministry of foreign affairs, studied the "Davignon report" in great detail, which constituted the preliminary sketches for the project of European political Union); he is possibly less well-known for his qualities as a man of action, and yet he was capable of managing the reconversion of the European steel industry (an enterprise which was as indispensable as it was colossal) and to seize the opportunities opened up by the "Cassis de Dijon" ruling of the Court of Justice in order to concretise the free movement of goods within the common market whilst avoiding any paralysing excesses of harmonisation.
As for Loyola de Palacio and Karel van Miert, we all though the impressions they left in the sectors of European integration entrusted to them, thanks to their passion for concrete action, their capacity to translate their beliefs into action and to use the legal instruments at their disposal with all possible efficiency, be it in the field of competition, transport or energy. I have expressed opinions different from the theirs on just two occasions. With Mr van Miert, this was on the application of competition rules in the field of sport, and with Ms de Palacio, it was on the scale of measures needed to safeguard the future of European fishing activities. Being as stubborn as Mr Prudhomme, even today I would still say about these dossiers: "this is my opinion, and I share it", because I maintain that the unfortunate Bosman ruling of the Court of Justice is behind a not inconsiderable part of the problems currently afflicting the world of football, and that safeguarding the life of our seas is one of the major responsibilities of Europe, which calls for drastic measures, even if they are hard to bear to start with. But what does this matter? A few differences of opinion can be the spice of friendship, and I'm certain that projects number one and number six of the European railway network group could not be in better hands.
I have no direct personal acquaintance with the three other coordinators Peter Balász, Pavel Telicka and, for the cross-cutting project, Karel Vinck. This is my fault. Their skills and authority are certainly beyond question. But the coordinators cannot perform miracles: the success of their job is related to the political and legal environment, and most of all, to the financial contribution which is to be decided on definitively at the highest level. I will discuss this environment and its constraints tomorrow. (F.R.)