The financial perspectives, a vital issue. The informal Summit of Hampton Court had the predicted results: a broad consensus on orientations which were sufficiently general to be shared by all, alongside the confirmation of the deep divisions between the Member States once the discussion between the Heads of Government moves on to more specific and concrete issues (such as the creation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the Bolkestein directive, of which Austria has clearly called for the withdrawal). One positive result to be chalked up is the more optimistic tone of Tony Blair on the prospects of reaching an agreement on the forthcoming financial perspectives this December. The British Prime Minister seems to understand just how important a rapid decision on this is to the new Member States. Has he also understood that no agreement will be possible unless it upholds both the budgetary allocation already decided upon for the agricultural policy and sufficient funds to continue a genuine "cohesion policy", not just one entailing transferring a few resources to the least-favoured countries of the Union? If this is the case, a compromise will soon be possible. But for the time being, it's all wishful thinking.
Towards a common energy policy? Even before the Summit started, Tony Blair limited its scope: informal in nature, just one day of debates, no final press release. And he could be sure in advance that he would get his consensus on the broad outlines: who was going to stand up and challenge the priority objectives he announced to the European Parliament on Wednesday? Developing research and innovation, improving the prestige of European universities, controlling illegal immigration, getting to grips with the consequences of demographic change, stepping up the anti-terrorism strategy, completing the single market and improving its functioning, tightening up the strategy in favour of Africa. Who is going to challenge anything so obvious? In his list, there were only two concrete and innovative points: the "Globalisation Adjustment Fund", which José Manuel Barroso took care to present in a neutral budget reform, and which met with many misgivings (but Mr Blair said that he was optimistic that it would be approved), and, in particular, the idea of a common energy policy, which the European Commission and certain governments have been working on for a long time and which would mark a clear turning point in the history of Europe. But Tony Blair has not yet gone beyond a vague affirmation of the principal, which needs to be consolidated if it is to be convincing. I will come back to this next week.
Tony Blair's two qualities and the French disenchantment. Should we conclude that the informal Summit was a pointless exercise? Certain observers think so, but I would not go that far. Tony Blair deserves credit for two of his main qualities: his skills as a "communicator" (and Europe needs plenty of these) and his merit in having kept hold of a certain amount of optimism, a certain faith in the future. This is important given the wave of discouragement which has swept over large parts of continental Europe. The attitude of scepticism and disenchantment towards European integration, which has recently unfurled in France and, to an extent, in Germany and the Netherlands, was too quickly thought to be general to the whole of the European public. The French and their elite must stop believing that they are some kind of paragon for what happens on a broader scale. Despite its setbacks, the united Europe continues to represent a model in which many populations still believe, to which European States which are not yet a part of it aspire to join with all their strength, and which many countries outside Europe see as a model they would like to imitate. The air of self-sufficiency which can occasionally be detected in France is not representative; the French should try to find a bit of dynamism and confidence in the future.
A solid common basis. Most of all, the Hampton Court Summit confirmed that what can be done within the boundaries of the British conception of Europe can, despite everything, be significant. Let us not forget the lesson taught by Jacques Delors: under certain circumstances, the greater Europe bringing together 30 Member States or even more can be a solid basis, with its three fundamental objectives: peace and security, the greatest single market added to by solidarity (expressed, amongst other things, in the agricultural and cohesion policies); respect for national identities. Any additional ambitions, which must be firmly upheld by those who believe in them, possibly without the involvement of all, must not lead to anybody disdaining the common basis which is the envy of the entire world. (F.R.)