The two players. I wrote at such length ahead of the European Council about the fact that the most important thing was for the leaders to agree on the Financial Perspectives that I'm hardly going to change my mind now - the agreement reached is positive for Europe, but I am not jumping with joy. As a breathing space, the EU needed this agreement to guarantee spending in 2007 (the current budget deal ends at the end of 2006). The new deal exists and it is now possible to view certain skulduggery in the talks as secondary. Tony Blair made the required concession on the size of the British rebate, confirming his personal support to the European project in the full awareness of what was waiting for him at home, in other words fierce lambasting and insults even from much of the political class and the media (which is plumbing new depths in its criticism). Did he take this risk because he still wants to fight to put the UK at the centre of EU action, as he has said in the past, or because he wants to go down in history ahead of leaving active politics? Time will tell.
All commentators agree that Angela Merkel was the other key player in the agreement. She confirmed a constant characteristic of Germany over half a century of the European project - in times of trouble, Germany comes to the fore, always on the right side and bearing more than its fair share of the cost of Europe. Angela Merkel also showed that the countries of Central and East Europe can count on her support in the European institutions.
The'Awkward Squad' failed to materialise. Tony Blair's tactic of sweeteners for Member States in line with their actual needs definitely paid off because it won over a series of reservations. Despite a few sporadic alliances, no firm 'awkward squad' of Member States refusing to compromise was actually formed to block the final deal. Slovakia did not want Central and East European countries to be seen before the European Council as forming a negative block, and a tentative draft statement by the three Benelux countries (Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands) also failed to materialise. At the end of the day, only two prime ministers openly brandished the threat of a veto, namely Poland throughout and Italy at one point. It is only to be expected that governments will fight to get a little extra for their countries but they should not go beyond the pale. Who can seriously claim that what is described as an unacceptable and unfair compromise becomes acceptable and balanced if several hundreds of euros over eight years is shifted to their country? Despite too much posturing by some countries, all Member States demonstrated that they wanted success - even Poland knew it needed agreement to allow new policies to come into force at the start of 2007.
There's more to it than EU funding. People went too far in the past when they claimed that a budget of 1.03% of EU GNI meant the EU was doomed. They are going too far now when they claim that 1.045% will save the EU. European funding is vital for meeting some objectives, like the Cohesion Policy (to bring forward countries lagging behind), the farm policy (to maintain farming across the EU), various trans-European networks (which would suffer serious delays, and parts crossing borders would never be completed without EU funding). But for other areas, like the Lisbon Strategy, responsibility generally lies in the hands of the Member States because domestic reforms can't be made in Brussels. And anyway, the way the money is actually used tends to be more important than the actual amount of money itself (some regions of Italy have been getting EU handouts for more than half a century but virtually no progress has been made, while other regions have made huge strides in a single decade).
The 'big think' on the future of Europe may now begin. The situation is pretty clear now. The compromise agreement struck in the early hours of Saturday morning will allow the EU to operate normally until 2013 and will cover the costs of the most recent round of enlargement. It also establishes a setting for vital questions about the future of united Europe to be addressed - like what it is exactly, its targets, how its institutions operate, how far its external borders stretch. The 'big think' on the future of Europe may now begin. My column will take on this task next year.
(F.R.)
| SPECIAL EDITION EUROPEAN COUNCIL - 15/16 December 2005 |