It's not possible to please everyone. After presenting the European Commission's “Green Paper” on an energy strategy for public scrutiny on Wednesday, José Manuel Barroso and Andris Piebalgs learned at least one thing: it is impossible to please everyone. Barely had their press conference concluded that a wave of reactions was breaking. The Greens in the European Parliament said the Commission should have ruled out nuclear power; the association representing renewable energies said it had missed a great opportunity to re-launch these energies; Friends of the Earth said it was suggesting an energy policy “for dinosaurs”; Greenpeace said it was giving preference to polluting and risky fossil fuels; WWF said it lacked a long-term vision; Eurochambres that it had neglected market liberalisation, the key to success. And I am only talking about those who had already protested before the document was available, leading Mr Barroso to note that several points had been revised as late as Wednesday morning and that it would perhaps be a good idea to read the document before commenting on it.
What Mr Barroso is expecting from the Summit. It is true that the document is short on operational suggestions, and earth-shattering revelations and developments. But a Green Paper is not a programme for action; it opens the debate, something which would be pointless if the outcome was already known. Mr Barroso underlined that it was a challenge thrown down to Member States and that, at the next Summit, he expected them to show the political will to act together and the “urgency” (something that was anticipated in this column in EUROPE 9145). This is the main thing, because Europe has the dimensions and instruments to act if there is the political will. The Commission President says that, despite its limits, the document contains many guidelines, objectives and institutional innovations. It also poses the question of a timescale and costed objectives. The Commission is not lacking ideas and ambitions on this, but it has to take into account that, in this area, competence is shared between the EU and Member States. It needs the political nod before forging ahead.
Over and above these general thoughts, I would like to highlight four specific points raised by the Commission President in response to questions from journalists.
The lack of a legal basis for a European strategy. Although provided for in the Constitutional Treaty, this basis has been blocked by the two “No” votes. Mr Barroso considers that this deficiency is more than made up for by the change in political atmosphere. Yesterday, some Member States were comfortable in the illusion that they could face the challenges in energy on their own. At Hampton Court, the Summit unanimously called on the Commission to propose a European strategy. The political will and sense of urgency are, according to Mr Barroso, more important than legal weakness.
2. Tendencies towards “economic nationalism”. The few cases making headlines in the newspapers should not obscure the fact that the tendency is very much towards the creation of companies that are European, in size and in mixed nationality. The European market today is greater than yesterday, tomorrow it will be greater again. Economic agents are anticipating the single and open market. It is the speed of this trend which is causing current reactions and difficulties, according to Mr Barroso, and he observes, “We have European aeronautical, steel, defence companies. Why shouldn't we have such energy companies?”
3. The nuclear debate. Mr Barroso was very clear: the Commission will not intervene on the energy mix chosen by each Member State, and it will respect national choices. However, the Commission thinks that this issue should be the subject of an objective and transparent debate at the Summit, so that the way that each one is moving is known, that account is taken of safety issues and that there is coherence across Europe.
4. Poland's preference for world management of energy (see EUROPE 9140). Mr Barroso said that Polish worries were being taken into account, but the principle of Community solidarity was at the heart of what the Commission was recommending and the instruments it was considering (management of stocks, joint negotiations with non-Member countries etc.). Commissioner Piebalgs added that the Green Paper dealt fully with Polish concerns. Some of the current tendencies of the Polish government, however, are worth coming back to in this column in the near future.
(F.R.)