The agreement between the European Heads of State and Government during the night of 16th to 17th December on the 2007-2013 budget is good news for the Union. From psychodrama to states of profound doubt the European project seemed to be trapped in a harsh confrontation of national interests, to the exclusion of all other rationale. What would have been said if an agreement had not been found!
The European leaders therefore proved their wisdom by finding a compromise which sends out a clear sign to all Europeans: Europe exists and continues. It was arduous and extremely difficult but it is always possible for reason to win the day!
With regard to Europe the worst is never a certainty because the strength of the European idea wins in the end over the possible consequences of its rejection.
Tony Blair had to give way to the pressure of his 24 partners in spite of British public opinion that had been brought to boiling point by the tabloids. He did it with style albeit rather late.
His partners were able to smooth over the sensitive points and focus on the heart of the matter. We must congratulate them also.
France did not miss this occasion which was notably the opportunity to provide the Franco-German axis with greater visibility after a long electoral period in Germany.
There is however a great deal still to do. First of all this budget must be approved by the European Parliament. Then we must really look in depth into the means available to Europe. A “re-examination clause” has been planned for in this budget mid term and the Commission must deliver a report to the Council in 2008-2009. This is also important so that the results of the French and Dutch referenda do not prevent the Union from providing itself with institutions that are more democratic and more efficient.
Hence we are entering a proposal phase that must be dynamic. It is time to debate. Let’s start writing!
Many agree in believing that the British Presidency of the European Union is inactive and disappointing and that it reflects an equation of an internal policy in which Tony Blair has lost his touch.
In fact the situation is much more serious than this. We have before us a concerted scheme to demolish the European “acquis”. It is as if our friends across the Channel are once again trying to achieve their oldest dream: that is to block European integration.
By preventing any agreement on the European budget in the Spring Europe was already paralysed and its new members penalised – these new democracies that have all courageously endeavoured to make up for lost time. But in June the UK led the EU into a serious crisis by refusing to make the slightest compromise. All of the Union’s Member States have accepted to undertake financial sacrifices. The UK however obstinately held on to the upkeep of its “rebate”; which Europe had granted it during Mrs Thatcher’s time and when she was in difficulty. Today the UK receives from the Union, in the name of solidarity, a cheque in excess of 5 billion € which will soon rise to 8 billion. This represents 10% of the French contribution to the Union, i.e. 28€ per French citizen per year. To boot the new Member States contribute more than 1 billion € to British prosperity! …
The British entirely lack the remotest vision of Europe and have never taken the slightest positive initiative for the continent. In the wake of the French and Dutch referenda we might have hoped for Tony Blair to take such an initiative. A strategy for Europe, if it was contrary to our interests, would naturally have led him to take up the leadership amongst his colleagues just as we were experiencing difficulty in digesting our “NO”, Germany was voting and the Italians were in trouble. But Tony Blair was nowhere to be seen!
Barely a dignified speech at the European Parliament: Words, words, and more words! However it might have been the contrary! He continues to adopt a curtailed approach as if he does not know what Europe is about.
From the very start the European Union has progressed forwards in two directions simultaneously: on the one hand there is the liberalisation of the internal market the real reason why our living standards have improved, and on the other hand there is the solidarity between States and regions, between various categories of people and activities, in need of temporary aid. If we have succeeded in converting our steel industry and closing our mines, which is progress, it has been thanks to the solidarity of the ECSC! If Ireland has experienced such exceptional growth over the last 20 years it is not due to British aid but due to the EU’s Structural Funds that have enabled it to catch up with our living standards. We have all taken advantage of this!
Europe moves forwards on two legs. The UK would like it to be one legged. It would like its second leg to be made of wood!
The buzz word in London is that “less of Europe will make a better Europe”. On all the technical subjects that have been on the agenda during their presidency the British have systematically taken up an unbalanced stance, pleading for liberalisation, which in fact few people would contest, and forgetting as if in provocation the necessary solidarity imposed by community spirit.
Whilst the Commission was deliberating on legislative measures to take in order to reduce the dangers of pollution on our coastlines British officials were organising a seminar in Brussels entitled: “How to legislate less in Europe”! The victims of oil slicks would be extremely appreciative! Who indeed can say that we must not legislate in order to strengthen air security as suggested by Commissioner Jacques Barrot, or security in the face of terrorism, or safety of foodstuffs?
Legislating in Europe does not mean simply adding yet another law, it means harmonising national regulations on the basis of the most favourable for citizens and consumers.
Tony Blair’s most recent provocation in view of the next European Council on 15th and 16th December is to reduce the Union’s budget.
He would prefer to reduce the European budget rather than limit the now unmerited advantages that the UK enjoys and this is simply unacceptable. First of all it would penalise the new Union members who sorely need the Common Agricultural Policy and the Regional Policy the most. It is counter to the most elementary sense of solidarity. It is also a foolishly short-sighted calculation: the development of our partners is accomplished in our own interest as proven by the Spanish and Portuguese examples.
The European budget is primarily one of redistribution and realignment. If we reduce it solidarity will be reduced. It only represents 1% of European wealth, i.e. 106 billion €. Of this sum only 6% is dedicated to administrative expenditure. The rest is used in the field. Nearly 36% is dedicated to the solidarity policy with the poorest regions whose infrastructures need our funding and without which growth is impossible.
In reality the British are not playing ball. Once more they are sitting on the fence. They have taken advantage of the greatest internal market in the world, bringing in nearly 20% of foreign investment into Europe (23 billion $ in 2004), mainly emanating from the USA and that contribute to nearly 7% of their overall GDP, but they have freed themselves of the disciplines that we have imposed on ourselves with the Euro. Hence they can easily re-invest on the continent. Crudely we might call this an offshore economy, from which all industry is slowly disappearing but which has been artificially boosted with foreign money. American influence in the UK represents a capital of nearly 1,500 billion $, i.e. a third of American investments in Europe. Given these conditions it is easy to flaunt a growth rate higher than that in the Euro Zone – and it is surprising that it is not even higher.
We understand that the present situation does not encourage the British to draw up a project for Europe!
The demolition operation started by the UK must be rejected with extreme firmness. It would result in the failure of the policy to reunite Europe, its impoverishment and regression for all of the continent’s citizens. It might disguise itself with a cover of modernity but it is merely a short term vision that is damaging to the interests of the other Union members and the European project.
This is why if Tony Blair or even his successors manage to pull off their demonic project and permanently weaken the European Union there will be no other choice but to imagine a new Europe oriented towards the Continent only; this is necessary in order to safeguard a model that is not outmoded but envied, one that conciliates free exchange and solidarity, i.e. true political liberalism.
