The refusal of the majority of French and Dutch citizens to approve the European Union constitution brought substantial, if not radical, corrections to the agenda of European integration. For the next six months, at least. Everything was turned upside down in the common European home, and hastily at that. The summit in Brussels on June 16-17 achieved little: a forced compromise was reached, resembling a modified formula of “neither peace nor war, but do not disband the army.” It was decided not to wind down the ratification process, to let things go as they go — perhaps things will work out — but to declare a timeout. For reflection.
On paper everything looks smooth
When in February, speaking in the House of Commons, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw outlined the range of priority tasks to be given preference during his country's six-month watch as President of the European Union, which began on July 1, no one even in the darkest nightmares foresaw that the French and Dutch would say “No!” to the EU constitution. Tony Blair has every reason for concern: just as Winston Churchill was prime minister during the collapse of the British Empire, so he, possibly, will have to command the parade at that unfortunate historical moment when more and more Euro-dissidents start marching out of step.
At the beginning of the year, Her Majesty's Government planned quite a few attractive measures aimed at the common good, targeted, quoting J. Straw, at “security, prosperity and sustainable economic growth.”
Specifically, during the British presidency of the EU, it was supposed to “remove barriers to the free movement of labor, goods, capital, and especially services” — in value terms, the services market accounts for 70% of the EU's GDP. It was decided to achieve progress in limiting the harmful human impact on the environment leading to detrimental climate change (stricter emission limits for aviation equipment). To simplify laws born in the depths of Euro-bureaucratic institutions, and most importantly, to effectively monitor their implementation, provided that all possible consequences are correctly assessed in advance and the competitiveness of the economy of a united Europe does not suffer. To persistently fight terrorism, regional instability, and local conflicts. And so on in the same positive spirit.
Let us mention two sections on domestic and foreign policy that revolve around not the most harmless financial issues. The first is the filling of the common budget and the fate of the rebate in favor of Britain; the second is relations with the “new neighbors” on the periphery of the unexpectedly sprawling EU, as well as with Russia and the United States. In addition, in his program speech, J. Straw mentioned two other fateful problems — the ratification of the all-European constitution and the next stage of EU enlargement to the east and south.
Dividing the money spoils anyone
No one promised easy discussions on the hot topic — the conclusion of an agreement on the EU's “financial perspectives” for 2007-2013. From the very beginning (and the negotiation marathon started back in February 2004), the bargaining took place in an atmosphere as close to hostile as possible. The participants in the debates diplomatically (read: with polite stubbornness) rolled among themselves three impressive apples of discord. First: an increase in the community budget in real terms by 34%. Second: a reduction in subsidies under the common agricultural policy. Third: a reduction in the annual compensation in favor of the generous donor to the European treasury, Britain, amounting to €5.3 billion.
The European Commission believes that to fulfill all its obligations and cover expenses, it is necessary to draw up a budget that would equal 1.24% of the total GDP of all states of a united Europe. Note: currently it is just under one percent.
Britain, supported by the Euro-heavyweights France and Germany, with Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden joining them, insists that the money collected, which amounts to £70 billion when converted from euros, will be enough anyway, including for paying for last year's EU enlargement. Especially since the planned increase exceeds the more modest growth rates of the budgets of most countries.
Luxembourg, a tiny but grand duchy, and at the same time equal among equals, demands a compromise on the EU's agricultural policy, which consumes 45% of the entire budget. Read: it is time to cut subsidies. As expected, France, which gets the lion's share of this pie, does not want to hear about the redistribution of financial flows. At the Brussels meeting, Tony Blair applied the classic principle of “linkage,” insisting that all budget puzzles be solved in one package. This means: if the French are not persuaded to give up feeding their farmers, and the “price of the issue” is €13 billion a year, then there is no point even mentioning reducing the compensation paid to the British.
This is about the achievement of 1984 (the credit belongs to Margaret Thatcher) — the return of 3 billion pounds sterling from the United Kingdom's contribution to the common pot. Jacques Chirac's call on the eve of the Brussels summit to his British colleague to demonstrate a “gesture of solidarity,” that is, to moderate appetites, drew a reasoned rebuke from Tony Blair. To begin with, the Prime Minister recalled that for 10 years Britain has done nothing but show solidarity: its contribution to the EU budget is two and a half times greater than France's. But if the “rebate” were abandoned, then in this case financial injections on behalf of British taxpayers would exceed the contribution of their neighbors across the English Channel by 15 times. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, recalling that in terms of the weight of its financial contribution Britain ranks second, transparently hinted: in extreme need, London will not hesitate to resort to its inalienable right of veto.
The counterarguments of their opponents, however, are no less crushing: the heiress of the British Empire, where in colonial times every subject had three slaves working for him, still today retains a dynamic industrial potential — unlike the traditional economic "locomotives" of Germany and France, which have lost their former agility. And most importantly, if you recalculate the British contribution per capita, it turns out that the Brits pay less not only than the Germans, but also than the Dutch and Swedes, and this despite the fact, as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder loudly complains, that the inhabitants of Albion have one of the highest incomes in the EU.
In short, just as the housing question once spoiled Muscovites, so today the money question spoils Europeans, who in all other everyday situations remain quite tolerant and well-meaning.
Respite or Reaching the Limit of Growth?
For the next six months, the idea of building privileged relations with the "new neighbors" remains in force. They include a very motley company: besides Ukraine, there are Moldova, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan. The second wave is on the way, consisting of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Egypt, and Lebanon. Russia, both in J. Straw's speech and in all other program documents, is singled out in a separate subsection. The four common spaces are again named, covering such areas as the economy; freedom, security and justice; external security; science, education and culture. It is stated that the advance right up to Russian borders and the entry of former socialist countries and ex-Soviet republics into the composition "expanded the framework of opportunities for cooperation."
The delicacy of the dialogue, together with the unabated dispute with another center of power — America, is underscored by the mention that the US Congress last year repealed a law that granted tax breaks to a number of American industrial companies. This was done not of its own free will, but under pressure from the Europeans, who responded with symmetrical measures and also brought in WTO mechanisms. Also spelled out is the story of the clash of two monopolist giants in the field of aircraft construction. In October 2004, the Americans filed a lawsuit against the EU for allegedly subsidizing the project to create a superliner, the three-deck "Airbus A-380", capable of carrying from 555 to 840 people depending on the configuration. The Europeans struck back and accused the George Bush administration and the Boeing concern of similar sins - the quarrel continues.
Under British patronage, at least as was planned, they will continue to prepare the ground for adding to the list. It is expected that Bulgaria and Romania will sign the agreement on accession to the EU, that official negotiations will begin with Croatia and Turkey if they meet all the criteria, and that the European Commission will deliver its final verdict on Macedonia's readiness to join the Union.
How relevant is this today, when so unexpectedly and suddenly the prospects for further EU enlargement have been left in limbo? At the Brussels meeting, Sofia and Bucharest were given hope by a promise — they would certainly be co-opted into the Union, but only in 2007. For the rest, a painful pause has set in. It is no coincidence that Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende stated that almost 62% of the rejection votes among his compatriots is a clear example that "doubts about the entire process" of further integration have appeared in society. "The people," the prime minister summed up, "are interested in what will happen to our sovereignty and our national identity." This thereby confirms the conclusion, in particular, of a BBC commentator that one of the root causes of the rejection of the constitution is "the large-scale expansion of the EU to include 10 states of Central and Eastern Europe." And the Danish newspaper "Information" resorts to a metaphor: "Old Europe is like a tired elderly woman who is difficult to interest in anything and who doubts the benefits of closer integration."
The parrot is not dead. It is simply resting.
Does this mean that the very idea of a greater Europe, as the British Tories are quick to assure everyone, is fading into oblivion? None of the ruling politicians, apparently, thinks so, and certainly does not say so. As one diplomat put it, "no one wants to strike the first blow at Caesar. Each leader looks at the other and says, 'Ah, Cassius, only after you.'"
A significant role in the fact that the fog of uncertainty has thickened was also played by the preemptive move of T. Blair's cabinet: it was announced that the referendum on the EU constitution in Britain, scheduled for spring 2006, is postponed indefinitely. "A real tactical masterpiece," said the Austrian "Standard", regarding it as a successful ploy to avoid an almost programmed humiliating defeat. The Danish "Berlingske Tidende" put it more harshly: "French and Dutch voters killed the European constitution, and the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed the death certificate." The German "Tagesspiegel" poured contempt on Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder for the inability of the Franco-German "pushmi-pullyu" to lead the others: the Paris-Berlin axis, according to the newspaper, provides neither a steering function nor an engine: only brakes are attached to it.
For the next six months, the British captain on the EU's bridge faces a dilemma: either to slow down, as the decisions of the Brussels summit suggest, and not even attempt to conduct agitation and propaganda work in favor of the constitution, or to put into practice its spirit and letter, as advocated by incorrigible integration enthusiasts. For example, the European Commission could, as written in the text of the constitution, forward draft laws to national parliaments for approval: if the legislative bodies in at least three countries reject an innovation, it is considered not adopted. It would also be possible to establish the planned defense and foreign policy departments. In other words, construction can proceed without an approved, or rather ratified, master plan, on the assumption that the time will come and consensus will once again be reached. But it is hardly likely that Britain, which has always held itself aloof in the European family and is suspected of pro-American lobbying leanings, will act as the savior of a united Europe.
The current "system malfunction" will have to be overcome, and that it will be overcome is beyond doubt. It will take painstaking, filigree reforms, and it is not inconceivable that some principles will have to be sacrificed. In some things, but not in the main. So the confirmed Eurosceptic, Tory MP David Heathcoat-Amory, will not live to see the hands of the clock turned back. The bonds of the European Union will not be broken; it will not become the Common Market again, whose degree of coordination and consistency of action was nominal, and which differed from the present Union as hastily mustered militia differs from a regular army. Hence there is a certain logic to the joke of the British wits from the parody-satirical television series "Monty Python's Flying Circus": this parrot (read: the EU) is not dead, it is just resting.