Most observers feel the year 2006 is looking more auspicious for Europe than the start of 2005, given the compromise deal on the EU's Financial Perspectives 2007-2013 and the objectives of the World Trade Organisation Doha Trade Round. I will take time to look back in detail at these two big deals, but in the meantime, as is customary, the EU Presidency changes hands every six months and Austria is now at the helm, chairing the European Council, the Council of the EU and dependent bodies. I am almost stating a commonplace if I point out that the Presidencies of small countries often get great results. Austria is a particular case because it is modest in terms of size, but huge in terms of history and cities (Vienna is one of the cultural capitals of the world and Salzburg cannot be equalled).
Necessary distinction. Before looking at the plans of the incoming Presidency, what can we say about the outgoing? I believe we have to distinguish between the behaviour of Tony Blair and some of his ministers, whose action was broadly positive for Europe, and the attitude of other ministers, led by Gordon Brown, the majority of the political classes and most of the media, who confirmed their opposition to the European project in the form it takes on the Continent. Tony Blair personally paid a vital role in winning the approval of the Financial Perspectives 2007-2013, and I know of no other British figurehead who could have got their country to agree to go beyond 1% of GDP for EU spending and restricting future rises in the British rebate. I am well aware that the European Commission, and to an even greater extent the European Parliament, feel the compromise deal does not go far enough, but I also know that the cost of failure would have been disastrous for the EU and the countries of central and Eastern Europe which would have been the first victims. I feel the idea expressed by some that failure would have been better because it would have been a healthy slap in the face is crazy. A healthy slap? More like a disastrous crisis, particularly because the compromise, despite shortcomings, it objectively acceptable and can still be improved. I will return shortly to the Financial Perspectives and the forthcoming negotiations between the Parliament and Council. For the moment, I would simply like to point out that the compromise is the most important outcome of the Blair Presidency, also for the three main politicians contributing to it, namely Jean-Claude Juncker (his June draft deal served as a basis for the final deal), Angela Merkel and Jose Manuel Barroso.
Alongside the Financial Perspectives, in his last speech as chair of the European Council at the European Parliament, Tony Blair listed the positive outcomes of the British Presidency - launching accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia and the REACH chemicals legislation, and most of all, the general significance of his European action since he became prime minister. He said that the mad cow crisis had led the United Kingdom to lose all its influence in the EU, excluding it from all the important EU initiatives. But he sees the UK now at the heart of all large-scale initiatives and future projects, and the root of the idea to hold a review of the EU's functioning and ambitions in 2008 to change the form and the way Europeans' money is used. Asked by a British reporter (!) about the negative attitude of the media and public opinion back home, Tony Blair said that it was for reporters themselves to answer the question, rather than ask it, about the media. He asked the media whether they believed the British press was objective in its coverage of European affairs, giving a resounding 'No' as his own reply. Blair added that in his view, it is in the interest of the UK to be a good partner in Europe and his responsibility was to do what was in his country's interests rather than what reporters told him to do. Blair said that the British people understood that it would be unreasonable to move away from Europe.
A European, but for which Europe? Tony Blair's overall performance that day (statement to the European Parliament, answering reporters' questions, and the final press conference, see EUROPE 9094) confirmed that he is a good communicator and is sincere when he says he wants to put the UK at the heart of European initiatives. But nothing indicates that 'his' Europe is the same Europe the rest of the Continent aspires to.
He thinks of a renewed Europe without the structured Cohesion Policy (replaced by payments to poorer countries) or the Common Agricultural Policy, and which would not be funded by a European tax. The main priority for Blair is competitiveness, even in agriculture. How can he talk about the mad cow crisis without understanding that it was caused by trying to make farming more competitive by feeding cattle with animal meal, going against the laws of nature because cows are herbivores? How can he claim to apply for farming the ideas of price wars and competitiveness that apply to industry? But let us not run away with ourselves - the review of European objectives is for 2008 and 2009 and Tony Blair admitted that it is the European Commission that will be preparing the discussion documents. For the moment, let us return to his farewell to the European Parliament.
Petty and arrogant. The harshness of some criticisms, from British MEPs in particular, should not give the impression that an uncomfortable, tense atmosphere reigned. The feeling on the day was far more relaxed (Graham Watson described it as 'festive'), as if the European Parliament was more or less consciously relieved by the existence of new Financial Perspectives (even though it focussed on shortcomings and the provisional nature of the deal, awaiting Council talks with the EP). Let us leave aside the two extremes - the extreme right for its pettiness and the extreme left for a degree of arrogance. Listening to Nigel Farage, we had to pinch ourselves to believe we were really at the European Parliament. His petty nationalism was sickening as he demanded to know why British taxpayers had to fund the Warsaw underground system or Budapest's sewers. At the other end of the scale, Giusto Catania said that heads of state had ignored the will of the people (unless I'm mistaken, the people elected them) and had made the crisis in Europe worse, to the detriment of the weakest regions (although it's the very countries of central and Eastern Europe that will be the priority beneficiaries of the deal that was reached), concluding that the compromise would be totally rejected by the European Parliament. He should leave it to the Parliament to decide for themselves, without claiming to speak for everyone when he only represents a tiny proportion of voters.
The comments from other sources, like spokespersons for political parties and MEPs speaking in an unofficial capacity, were often justified and based on valid arguments from the European point of view. But I do not intend today to talk about the substance - I will save that for later discussions of the negotiations between the European Parliament and Council. Overall, Tony Blair against made a successful charm operation. Silvana Koch-Mehrin said that 25 Christmas presents do not made a budget for Europe, but admitted that Blair could have sold an old wreck for the price of a Ferrari. But not only that. Avoiding the empty rhetoric and demagogy that often ruin parliamentary debate, the British prime minister was able to raise the tone of the debate by pointing out what was at stake. He said that no matter how tough some of the debating and criticism got, one should never forget that the people fighting a battle of words today would have been shooting at each other in the past and this change was the result of the European project. We are all partners, said Blair, and our future is in Europe. He said that heads of state had the duty to pay attention to the interests of the country they represent but also had to have a bigger picture. Even from the national viewpoint, for example, backing central and Eastern Europe is investing in the future because these countries will contribute to everyone's prosperity and were already preparing for the day when they too become net contributors to the EU budget. There are a lot of things today that countries cannot do on their own and only a united Europe can achieve.
Can this positive idea of the principles and significance of Europe be turned into operational measures in Tony Blair's view? Or would it fall apart as soon as it comes to applying it? Above all, is it shared in his country? That's not the impression one gets when reading the media or the views of leading figures, not only on the opposition benches but also among the Labour Party and even some of Tony Blair's MPs. There are exceptions of course, like British MEPs are well known to our readers, like Andrew Duff, Graham Watson, Richard Corbett et al. Rising numbers of Continental politicians say mechanisms have to be established in Europe allow countries and groups of countries to take radical European initiatives even if other Member States do not take part, and the repeated mentions of the eurogroup (which the UK is not part of) to re-invigorate integration reveal the extent to which doubt and perplexity continue. A lot of people give the impression of sharing Sergio Romani's view, after listing everything he admires about the British and envies about their way of practising democracy, when he said it was a pity that it wasn't possible to build a united Europe with such an admirable people and country. Things have not moved on.
(F.R.)