At a crossroads” “

What emerged from the parliamentary session at Strasbourg (6-9 June) is a “nervous” Europe: a Europe that is about to hold the summit of heads of state and of government in Brussels (16-17 June). The double “no” to the European Constitution, coming from France and Holland, has influenced the United Kingdom, which has decided to defer any decision on the national referendum of ratification. Similar doubts have emerged in Sweden, Estonia and the Czech Republic, while concerns are growing in Luxembourg and Denmark, the next two countries called to the ballot box to decide on the Constitutional Treaty. While the European Parliament was able to reach a unified position (426 votes in favour, 140 against and 122 abstentions) on the Financial Prospects for the period 2007-2013, it failed to achieve a common resolution to send to the European Council with regard to the impasse created after the referenda that rejected the Constitution. “WE CANNOT PERMIT OURSELVES ANOTHER SETBACK”. “In this difficult situation the institutions must find an agreement on the Union’s priorities and on the means to pursue them. The position of the Assembly on the Financial Prospects is essential to this end”. The Spaniard Josep Borrell, president of the European Parliament, at the end of the vote that approved the document on the EU accounts for the next few years, expressed the hope that “the member states would reach a final accord during the forthcoming summit”. The rapporteur, German MEP Reimer Böge, had asserted during the debate that “without the agreement of the European Parliament there will be no Financial Prospects” and held out the prospect of a “deadlock” between the two budgetary authorities, the EP and the EU Council. During the debate, the Luxembourg minister Nicolas Schmit, on behalf of the Council, had affirmed that “in this moment we cannot permit ourselves a failure”. The minister had stressed that “nothing ought to distract us from the crucial objective of furnishing the Union with sufficient resources to perform the tasks that await it in the years ahead”. WIDER FRONTIERS, SAME RESOURCES. “More Europe cannot be made with less money”, said the Belgian Jean-Yves Loog, budgetary expert within the press office of the European Parliament, in a briefing to SIR. “In actual fact the overall figures of the Financial Prospects for the period down to 2013 are slightly increased, but in the meantime the Union has grown from 15 to 25 member states”. Moreover, the EU budget for the period 2007-2013 has to take into account not only the states that are already members, but also Romania and Bulgaria, which are due to enter the “common home” at the start of 2007. “The Parliament – continues Loog – has substantially supported the budgetary proposal advanced by the Commission”. But the axe of the Luxembourg Presidency has fallen on many budgetary items. And a further reduction of the accounts is already at the planning stage. “So far the items relating to the Lisbon Strategy (support for employment, social cohesion, research…), rural development and foreign policy, have been cut – explains an EU official -. Reductions on, for example, the trans-European networks and the policy of support to the less developed regions are now awaited”. VARIOUS POLITICAL POSITIONS. The accounts, however, are not the only preoccupation felt in the EU institutions. As for the future of the EU, the position of the main parties is diversified. The leader of the People’s Party group, the German Hans-Gert Poettering, declares: “The process of the ratification of the Constitution must go ahead, although the Union today is no longer the same after the “no” to the Constitution emanating from Paris and Amsterdam”. Poettering suggests two “essential attitudes” in this phase: “The Union has a leading role to play to tackle the problem of globalization, but Brussels cannot do everything. The principle of subsidiarity therefore needs to be fostered. Moreover, we cannot enlarge the EU too much. The negotiations with Turkey and the prospect of opening the frontiers to Bulgaria and Romania and to other countries have frightened people”. In the view of Martin Schulz, another German MEP and head of the Socialist group, “the situation seems very delicate. It seems equally clear, however, that the process of ratification must proceed, because every state has the right to express its view”. Schulz then turned his attention to the possible motivations of the French and Dutch “no”: “Promises have been made to citizens during these last decades. Europe has been able to fulfil those relating to peace and freedom. But the same cannot be said for other issues, such as security, employment and the transparency of the institutions”. Graham Watson, English MEP, head of the Liberal-Democratic group in the EP, adds: “I’m convinced that French President Chirac and Dutch premier Balkenende will have to explain to the summit in mid-June whether the Constitution can, sooner or later, be ratified in their countries. I also believe that the Union cannot proceed in this way, with the States taking the decisions without taking into due account the voice of the other institutions and of the citizens”.