Uphill task” “

The noble intentions that have supported half a century of European integration seem to have given way to national interests; concerns have been expressed about the failure to ratify the European Constitution in France and Holland, but member states now seem to be devoting their efforts especially to obtaining advantages from the Community budget. The summit of EU heads of state and of government in Brussels on 16 and 17 June has coincided with one of the most critical phases in the process towards the continent’s integration: the heated debate on the Constitutional Treaty has intersected with that on the Financial Prospects of the 25 and the two questions have become, in effect, the sole ones to occupy the centre of the negotiations. WEEK OF UNCERTAINTIES AND POSTPONED DECISIONS. It has been a difficult week for JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, Luxembourg premier and current President of the European Council. After the failure of the French and Dutch referenda, the Union sought to revive its fortunes during the summit of political leaders. The strategy to revive the process for ratifying the Constitution and the EU budget for the next few years was thus placed high on the agenda. Strong national interests, especially of Great Britain, France and Germany, have collided over this latter question. Junker had the unenviable task of settling the differences, but he more than once remarked: “I see no grounds for optimism. We are called to Brussels to seek an accord, and yet the climate is hardly the most conducive”. And yet a great capacity for mediation has to be recognized in Juncker: we will need to wait for the conclusion of the summit to discover whether it has led to any concrete results. It seems certain, however, that this summit will go down to history as that of postponed decisions. THE BRITISH REQUESTS, THE FRENCH POSITIONS. The main protagonists of the European political week and EU summit certainly include the British premier TONY BLAIR. Great Britain had in fact announced in advance that it would not “surrender a single pound” of its annual rebate on the EU budget that has been paid to it since 1984, when Margaret Thatcher managed to obtain it. Given that the United Kingdom then enjoyed lesser subsidies for agriculture and a precarious economic situation, London was able to benefit from this substantial “discount”: in fact Blair said he was ready to re-negotiate it, so long “the entire structure of the EU budget, beginning with the CAP (common agricultural policy), be put on the table”. Blair suggested that he might be prepared to compromise on the British rebate if the funds annually granted to agriculture be reduced: “agriculture – he pointed out – obtains 40% of the Union’s resources, though it only provides employment to 2% of the working population”. For his part, JACQUES CHIRAC, French President, explained that he does not intend to yield an inch on the question of EU support for French agriculture, while at the same time asking Blair to “give ground on the question of the British rebate”. Each government then placed its own national interests on the negotiating table: Italy insists that there be no reduction to the funds allocated to the southern regions, while the new member states ask for adequate funding to support their economies and social development and to realize essential infrastructures. Six states, headed by the Netherlands, have reaffirmed their determination to limit their national contributions to the budget of the Union to 1% of GDP, in spite of the fact that the Commission and Parliament have already made provision for higher contributions, to fulfil the obligations they have assumed towards the new members, and the future members Romania and Bulgaria, and to be able to implement all the EU policies. A PAUSE FOR REFLECTION. The fundamental attitude of the Union today is thus to defer any decision. In a context inflamed by the mass “no” to the Constitution, by the continuous opinion polls that register a growth in the number of “eurosceptics” in Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, the Czech Republic and Poland (shortly to be called to ratify the Treaty), and by the deferment sine die of the referendum in Great Britain, the heads of state and of government prefer to postpone the necessary decisions to an extraordinary Council to be held in the autumn. The President of the Commission, the Portuguese JOSÉ MANUEL DURAO BARROSO, had asked for such a breathing space prior to the summit: “Taking a pause for reflection is the only way of saving the Constitution. Continuing as if nothing had happened would only lead to further ‘no’ votes”. On the other hand, Barroso declared: “The Union will not be blocked nor paralyzed. The road of integration is essential”. With regard to the budget, the head of the Executive specified that “an imperfect accord is preferable to another failure. The Commission would like the Council to evaluate a clause of revision at the European Council at the end of 2008 with regard to the Financial Prospects”. A conciliatory message has since arrived from Blair, who will assume the rotating six-month Presidency of the European Council on 1st July: “I think it is important to take stock of the need for a far-reaching debate on the future of Europe”. That’s why “it is essential to sit round a table and think how to make Europe more responsive to people’s concerns”.