Obligatory responses. The arguments I've developed in this column over the last week show that the Member States hold many diverging views on the eagerly-awaited reflection on the future of the Union, to the extent that the announcement of an extraordinary Summit next month,to be given over to a debate between the Heads of State and Government on the European social model, was greeted with distrust in several capitals. This informal Summit will be reduced to a simple unofficial meeting which will struggle to go far beyond very general ideas, particularly if the British Prime Minister sticks to his refusal to approve the "financial perspectives" 2007-2013 without a radical change to the structure of the Community budget, particularly its agricultural expenditure. This kind of change is not on the cards, and these "perspectives" will be difficult to approve during the six months of the UK Presidency, which will be particularly harmful to the new Member States, who may end up not getting financial support to the anticipated (and promised) level in 2007.
It could be noted that differences of opinion on the purpose and nature of European construction have always existed, and that the EU has functioned, even made progress, notwithstanding. But times have changed, and it is no longer possible to overcome or skirt round the differences of opinion simply by avoiding talking about them, because Europe is now obliged to answer fundamental questions about its borders (with Turkey), how it organises its expenditure, maintains its agriculture, et cetera. So, is this deadlock? It is too early to say. We should not take literally each and every element of the starting positions laid out by Gordon Brown or Chancellor Schröder or Dominique de Villepin. Sometimes, excesses respond to requirements and internal policy, and saying things for impact or tactical considerations are never far from the fore. It should also be considered that statements on the part of the authorities in power do not always reflect national majority positions (as was proved by the referendums in France and the Netherlands).
France divided. France is split between those whose priority objective is to defend the European social model (which is identified with the national model, which they feel is under threat from globalisation and free trade concepts), and those who feel that the sensitive, nervous attitude (which is sometimes arrogant, the same time) bears no relation to the actual situation of the country. This latter is not improving, in the view of Alain Duhamel, the best-known spokesperson for those of a critical tendency, as long as the protecting statutes, corporate attitudes and accumulation of rules and regulations are considered as "social riot shields", when he in fact sees them instead as obstacles. From a European point of view, the fundamental criticism levelled at France's official attitude relates to the absence of "European goodwill", which Sylvie Goulard defined as "a fifth the lack of conviction, and lack of ideas, a lack of courage", adding: "let's not throw the European Union overboard because one generation didn't believe in it!". She went on to suggest a political initiative which would correspond, from the French point of view, to what Germany did when it "consigned the flagship of its success, the Deutsche Mark, to the waste bin of Community marriage". The initiative she would recommend would be as follows: "if the United States refused to let Germany into the UN Security Council, our immediate response should be to share the French seat with it, in the service of the EU" (and waiting for the hypothesis of the European seat to come to fruition one day).
A wrong good idea ? At first sight, the chances of the clash between all these different visions leading to a uniform vision of the future Europe look slim, and in any case, it is unlikely that this will be achieved during the remaining four months of the UK Presidency. For the most urgent aspect, that of the financial perspectives, the idea has been mooted to set them for three or four years, and in the meantime to discuss the new structure and the new priorities of Community expenditure, in full respect of all commitments taken regarding the new Member States during this "transition period" and keeping the status quo for the agricultural expenditure, whilst increasing funding for research and other priorities under the "Lisbon strategy" as much as possible. However, the European Commission and other bodies are strongly opposed to any such idea which, they feel, would strip Community activities of all duration and certitude, and would provide an excuse or pretext for the global reflection to be delayed.
Having compared a number of declarations and stances, next week I will try to draw a few conclusions from them, taking account of the risks that the absence of decision on the forthcoming financial perspectives would have for the functioning of the Union.
(F.R.)