“The trouble is not that we still don't have a budget, but the atmosphere that has developed inside the European Union.” These words of Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka, spoken last Friday at the end of another EU summit, most accurately reflect the mood of its participants, writes Vremya Novostey. Both the majority of heads of state and independent commentators speak of the deepest crisis of European integration in its entire history.
The acute Franco-British dispute over the principles of financing the European Union's common agricultural policy (farm subsidies account for 40% of the entire EU budget, about €300 billion from 2007 to 2013) threatens to undermine not only intra-European prospects but also to spill over onto the international arena. British newspapers, citing anonymous Foreign Office officials, reported that French President Jacques Chirac allegedly intends to get even at the upcoming early July summit of the “Group of Eight,” which this year is chaired by Britain. According to the sources, Chirac, representing one of the founding countries of the informal club, may simply not attend the ceremonial opening of the summit in Scotland on July 6, lingering in Southeast Asia: on that day, the International Olympic Committee is to announce in Singapore the venue for the 2012 Summer Olympics. It is worth recalling that Paris and London are competing for this right and, as The Sunday Telegraph notes, it is easy to imagine Blair's mood when receiving guests if Chirac brings from Singapore news of a French victory.
As ill luck would have it, from July 1 Britain also presides over the European Union, so the conflict that flared up at the last summit has every chance of blazing bright in the coming six months. Despite Tony Blair's optimistic statements, virtually no one expects the budget dispute to be resolved during the British presidency. First, because Downing Street intends to stand firm for the interests of its own taxpayers, and in this the government is supported by the majority of the population (according to an express poll by the News of the World - 71%). Second, there are fears that Paris will simply sabotage the negotiations as long as London remains at the helm.
Formally, the stumbling block at the EU summit that prevented approval of the 2007-2013 budget (according to different proposals, from €800 billion to €1 trillion) was the dispute over the size of Britain's rebate (this year - €4.4 billion) - the return of funds to London from the EU treasury for the fact that British farmers, unlike their colleagues on the continent, receive virtually no external subsidies. This, however, as the acting EU president, Luxembourg's Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, noted, is only a particular manifestation of the EU's ideological split into two camps, whose representatives see the future of the organization in completely different ways. Britain, which is supported to varying degrees by Northern Europe, the Netherlands and representatives of the new member states, would like the European Union to become, in Juncker's definition, something “a little more than a common market” - above all an economic alliance united by liberal economic principles. France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, four of the six founders of the European Community half a century ago, advocate a solidarity approach. It is based on strengthening the political component, expanding the powers of supranational bodies and large-scale centralized redistribution of funds in the form of subsidies to equalize conditions in different countries.
The parties did not mince words in assessing each other's positions. Tony Blair called for making the EU “modern” and advised opponents not to impose on him their ideas of what Europe is and what it should be: “Europe does not belong to any of them, it belongs to us all.” British Finance Minister Gordon Brown, who is considered the most likely successor to Blair as prime minister, noted that those who initiated the fuss over the British rebate seek to divert attention from the EU's real problems - rising unemployment, low economic growth, the failure of the constitutional referendums and the union's inability to adequately respond to the challenges of globalization. The Netherlands sided with the British (the largest per capita donor to the EU) and, somewhat unexpectedly, Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson. Stockholm is dissatisfied with the British rebate, but believes that its revision should take place in parallel with a revision of the entire EU agricultural policy toward a sharp reduction in subsidies.
Jacques Chirac in response accused Blair of provoking, in seeking to preserve his own privileges, a conflict that endangered the entire European future. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder reproached London and its allies for “national egoism,” to which Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende immediately retorted: the chancellor should show greater understanding of the situation. Representatives of Central European countries voiced unanimous disappointment with the “battle of the titans.” To the surprise of the EU “veterans,” all ten states that joined last year expressed their readiness, in the name of preserving unity, to give up part of their subsidies. However, the “giants,” while expressing admiration for the selflessness of the “little ones” (quite recently Poland, for example, fought like a lion for Brussels subsidies), did not even consider these proposals.
In the opinion of most observers, the European Union is entering a period of uncertainty. The nature of the process was precisely expressed after the French and Dutch referendums by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He compared integration to riding a bicycle: as soon as you stop, you start to fall. The blow dealt by the failure of the constitution became a catalyst for a variety of conflicts within the European Union. Since the mid-1990s, when Brussels embarked on two super-ambitious tasks at once - the introduction of a single currency and a significant expansion of the organization - the traditional EU process of seeking internal compromise became increasingly complex, and the number of factors and interests influencing decision-making grew exponentially. The inertia from the powerful impetus received after the collapse of the communist bloc lasted exactly 15 years, but the serious setback in the plebiscites showed that inertial forward motion had come to an end. Europe clearly needs a new start, and in essence the debate is about what it should be.
European analysts predict that the crisis caused by recent events will drag on for at least two years. As for the budget, it will, of course, be adopted before 2007: some kind of compromise will be found. However, the fundamental question of the European path of development is hardly within the power of the current leaders of the Old World to resolve - they have gone too far in their confrontation with each other. True, most likely in the next two to three years the main protagonists of the current conflicts will leave the political scene. Gerhard Schröder and Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski - as early as this autumn, Silvio Berlusconi - in 2006, Jacques Chirac - in 2007. Blair may also leave his post at the same time. The new leaders will have to solve the most complex political puzzle.
For the neighbors of the European Union seeking to become its members (primarily the Balkan countries, Turkey, and in the future Ukraine and Moldova), everything that happens inside the bloc is bad news. In an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, Vice-President of the European Commission Günter Verheugen, who in the previous composition of the commission was responsible for enlargement and was its convinced supporter, warned against further steps in this direction: "In addition to admitting countries into the European Union, there are other opportunities to ensure political and economic stability in Europe." Alarming notes sounded in the statements of Brussels officials even for Bulgaria and Romania, whose accession in 2007 had already been approved. As a high-ranking employee of Javier Solana's office told the author of these lines, their admission could well be postponed by at least a year. A month ago, there was no talk of such a thing. If the uncertainty within the EU continues to deepen, then expansion plans may be put on the back burner altogether.