We shouldn't get too surprised or worked up at the differences that appeared during the first exchanges of views at the ministerial councils regarding the European Commission's proposal on the Galileo project. Member states were not expected to reach an agreement on two of the most delicate aspects: funding sources and balanced industrial spin-off. Since a united Europe has begun its long journey, these two areas are still those that provoke most controversy. Negotiations will continue to be difficult, we expected it. When I examined the situation last week (this column in EUROPE 9513), I chose the title, Budgetary and technical negotiations on “Galileo” project must not overshadow its strategic, economic and scientific significance, the next day I added, for the absent-minded, a Quick reminder of the importance of “Galileo” for Europe.
Complexity of financial/budgetary chapter. The two sectoral Councils that kicked-off discussions on the Barrot formula (the Transport Council at the end of last week and the Economy/Finance Council at the beginning of this week) adhered to the accepted formula: firstly, the declaration of principle confirming the political determination for a relaunch, then the divergences voiced about the modalities. The president of the Transport Council underlined the “strong political signal”, by touching on the budgetary disagreement. Finance ministers quite logically stressed that it was up to them to define the financial modalities and they decided to tackle this in a concerted way last November, in light of the preparatory work urgently conferred on their experts. It was obvious that the Commission proposal involved revision of the financial perspectives that are valid up to 2013. This is a politically sensitive operation because the perspectives were established at a heads of Government level, following the events (the agriculture chapter!) and the subsequent injuries that have still not completely healed. Faced with this revision, inevitable if Galileo is to be funded out of the Community budget, several member states hesitated. The European Parliament is also directly involved in this and it began to rethink the matter in the context of preparations for the 2008 budget.
Every institution and each member state obviously has its interests (political and financial) to get across and their concerns are understandable. In my opinion, however, two comments are necessary:
The European Parliament now has to be aware that the alternative choice of funding by ESA (European Space Agency), called for by Germany, would eliminate any parliamentary involvement at the root of the matter because the ESA budget is purely intergovernmental. Parliamentarians have to prioritise the European interest over national interests.
Member states that are not part of ESA will also be, for the same reasons, excluded from financial operational negotiations if Community funding is ruled out.
Crucial balance of industrial interests. The second delicate aspect involves national participation in industrial policy and its subsequent spin-off effects - scientific as well as skilled jobs and other aspects. Industrial head-liners are inevitably the giant companies (Thales, EADS, Alcatel, Finmeccanica, as well as Inmarsat, Hispasat etc) established in the big member states, but small firms should not be ignored. The big-hitters negotiate between themselves, under the wary eyes of respective governments. This is unavoidable. Satisfactory balances have to be found that take into account past experience (which has not always been very jolly) but without excluding intervention by the public authorities.
Views from on-high. Political actors consider it likely, but not inevitable, that the last word will go to heads of state and government to make the final decisions during December's European Council. This high level should ensure the necessary degree of seniority regarding the views required for decision-making. Some heads of government are already talking about their willingness to compromise (Mr Prodi this week in Brussels). Meanwhile, the US, China and Russia have each been working on their own national “Galileos”. It is unthinkable that Europe is not up to the mark for something François Lamoureux and Loyola de Palacio spent their lives working (the former Commission vice president I should have mentioned in my previous commentaries) and for which Jacques Barrot has taken up the baton and patiently works.
(F.R.)