The EU under pressure

Libya’s military front, refugees’ landings in Italy, public budgets’ financial stability, record-breaking unemployment rates, the safety of nuclear plants: these a few of the hot issues addressed at European level, in Brussels’ and Strasbourg’s institutions and by the EU27. The challenge of last week’s meetings and those scheduled for the coming days is to show that the governments of Paris and Berlin, of Rome and Lisbon, of Stockholm, La Valletta or Vilnius, truly believe in Community integration, within the framework of cooperation and solidarity, shunning national egoisms, a-historical closures, and ineffectual threats of division.The ongoing challenges require urgent joint decisions in the framework of the Treaties and of the very “spirit” of integration that was launched sixty years ago, on April 18 1951 with the establishment of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community). In order to enable the EU to work concretely to the benefit of the citizens and of EU Member Countries, it is necessary to allocate an adequate budget, since without resources none of the common policies is feasible. And this applies to regional development policies, consumer protection, environmental protection, tackling migration pressure, border security, health and space research, cultural and youth programmes…As relates to the budget a proposal that has been recently advanced by MEPs belonging to different political groups addresses the question of EU budget funding, 75% of which is currently made up of national transfers that vary according to the dimension of the Member States. The proposal is timely, given the launch of the 2012 EU budget, notably, the “financial prospects” debate (namely, the multi-year budget). The intention conveyed by MEPs Alain Lamassoure (France, European People’s Party, President of the Parliamentary Budget Commission), Jutta Haug (Germany, Socialists and Democrats) and Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium, Liberal-Democrats), is to lay the grounds for a new way of EU budget funding, separated from national remittances thus decreasing EU dependence (in some cases making it less subject to “being blackmailed”) on national governments. With the suggested modalities – according to the decisions – Brussels’ Fund would be financed with a portion of the VAT already applied to consumption goods, by taxing financial transactions, through an arbitrary tax on carbon emissions, and with Eurobonds.The three MEPs submitted their proposals in Strasbourg on April 6, after having worked in close contact with the Centre for European Policy Studies and with Notre Europe. It is a good point of departure – without expecting it to be exhaustive – to reflect on the future not only of the budget but also on the kind of relations that national governments intend to entertain with the EU, showing, through the budget, to what degree they support the progress of the “European home”. Indeed, Lamassoure, Haug and Verhofstadt unanimously reiterated a clear and at the same time worrying concept: “Not a single euro, neither in the 2010 budget, nor in the 2011 or 2012 budget has been allocated for the implementation of the new EU responsibilities provided for in the Lisbon Treaty”. The heads of Government and State agree that the EU is “called to do more” (let it suffice to consider the Europe 2020 Growth and Employment Strategy or the launch of the European External Action Service) without allocating the necessary funds. Also on the basis of the response that will be given on this front will it be possible to measure the degree of “Europeanism” of EU27 leadership.