Three reasons for a watchword. Wisdom and moderation. These are not terms often used in this column when describing the progress made by the European idea. It is normally courage, resolve, imagination and just a touch of visionary audacity that is usually recommended. But the financial perspectives are a special case, for three reasons: a) there is already a project, wrought with great difficulty by reticent Heads of Government mainly concerned by national interests, and, despite its failings, this project is not as bad as it is claimed to be; b) the European Parliament must be aware that, in this field, until the EU has its own resources, national parliaments will always have the last word. They are the ones who vote on national spending (including contributions to the European budget) and who must bring in receipts to match; and c) Europe needs the decision to come before end March so that the new allocations and new programmes can be operational early next year. This is vital - especially for countries of Central and Eastern Europe, for which uncertainty and delay are more penalising than the few funding reductions already agreed to.
Money is not everything. The European Parliament, of course, cannot accept the current project as it stands (it has, moreover, just rejected it) and is right to call for proper negotiation and improvements. The European Council must agree to make an effort. The terms “wisdom” and “moderation” apply to the magnitude of the effort that is politically possible. Quite naturally, the “perspectives” as the Parliament itself had defined them, would have allowed additional initiatives and better efficacy of certain common policies. Compared to the original national positions, however, the compromises reached appear reasonable. During the first half of 2005, Jean-Claude Juncker had almost achieved a miracle (as the Parliament acknowledged in the welcome that it reserved for him end June) and, in December last, Tony Blair had accepted, with undeniable political courage, the effort to be made on the British rebate. His political opponents and the national press are still slamming him for this. Certain accusations in the current project almost make one smile. Who can possibly calculate, in earnest, to say that, with the figure given by the Summit, Europe is ruined, and that, with just a few billion more, everything would be saved? Money is not everything! In the Lisbon Strategy, certain national reforms and regained confidence have far more weight than just a little more funding (except for those who would directly benefit of course). Industrial sectors in difficulty, such as the textile sector and others, consider fair competition at global level respecting intellectual property and minimum social norms would do far more than subsidies. In agriculture, standing firm when it comes to keeping Community preference is of considerable more importance than export subsidies.
Aiming at new ideas. The Parliament is right to fight as everything it can win will be positive. But it must also be aware that the operation does have limits. For some Member States, the December compromise goes beyond what they were willing to accept. The eventual increase in the overall budget is therefore limited. When it comes to sharing out funding, balancing miracles were needed to reach indispensable unanimous consensus. Changing the way things are balanced is a perilous task. The margin of manoeuvre must be found in new ideas that the Parliament has the merit of floating, and which can constitute genuine innovation in the Union's budgetary mechanisms. Let me remind you of the main ideas: 1) better budget flexibility, making it easier to slide funding from one heading to the next to meet needs; 2) taking into consideration Union GDP growth, allowing the budget to be increased if growth exceeds forecasts (the budgetary advantage would be considerable if growth is revived); 3) a revision clause allowing the financial perspectives to be changed if situations evolve; 4) reform of the financial regulation aimed above all at improving implementation of spending programmes; and 5) greater Member State responsibility when it comes to managing European funding (spending is largely national, whether for agriculture or for cohesion policy).
Such improvements are less visible than additional funding reached after a great struggle, but the effect can be far more substantial. And, if everything goes well, I promise I shall never again recommend moderation and caution in European affairs.
(F.R.)