| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Europe | ||
| Poles hit out at 'national egoism' in France, Germany and Britain | ||
| 2005-06-20 | ||
It's getting ugly over there.
Senior British figures acknowledge the collapse of the deal was bad news for the EU's 10 new accession states because the lack of a budget agreement threatens to delay projects and slash structural payments. Having often posed in the past as the champion of the "new Europe" against the Franco-German core, Tony Blair, British prime minister, will therefore try to keep the 10 new member states on his side by pledging to try to get a budget deal agreed in the next six months. Given the dramatic clash between Mr Blair and President Jacques Chirac of France in Brussels last week, it is hard to see a deal being brokered rapidly. Mr Chirac ruled out any attempt to reopen the deal on Common Agricultural Policy spending agreed in October 2002. "It was not the most acrimonious European council I have been at but it was certainly up there," said a UK official, suggesting that President Chirac and German chancellor Gerhard Schröder had rounded on Mr Blair on Friday night. In Poland there is a sense of unfairness that old EU members, suddenly afraid of their eurosceptical voters, have taken to defending their national interests single-mindedly without thinking much about the EU as a whole. Warsaw is mindful of the enormous benefits gained by other poor countries included in earlier enlargements such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain and is worried that similar generosity may not be on offer to the former communist states who joined last year.
But wealthy European self-interest may exact a price. "Rich countries cannot say that we aren't going to give you a free market and aren't going to give you much money either," said Mr Pietras. "If we get no compensation, then we want competition." Marek Belka, Poland's prime minister, had offered a last-minute proposal to reduce payments to new EU members, an idea that Mr Blair rejected. "If there had been a will to compromise, then the offer by the new member states might have been accepted," Jan Truszczynski, Poland's deputy foreign minister, told the Financial Times. "If Britain had signalled its minimum conditions earlier, a compromise might have been possible." For Poland, the failure to pass an EU budget for 2007-2013 could have enormous consequences. If the budget is adopted next year, under the Austrian presidency, funding for some Polish projects could be delayed. If there is no new budget, then a provisional budget would go into effect that would see annual structural fund transfers to Poland cut to €4.6bn ($5.7bn, £3.1bn) from the €8.7bn under the failed Luxembourg proposal. The next EU budget cycle is Poland's best chance of catching up to western Europe. Poland could get a total of €81bn, including both regional and agricultural funds. The budget cycle after that would be for an EU that included much poorer Romania and Bulgaria, and would also be looking toward possible Turkish membership, leaving much less for Poland. Mr Truszczynski said: "A future budget compromise may be less advantageous for Poland." Polish anger at the old EU's lack of financial generosity is matched by dismay that an inward-looking Union will have no time or energy to think of further expansion. Warsaw is in favour of Turkey joining the club but is most interested in attracting Ukraine, which would move Poland from Europe's periphery closer to its centre. Gunter Verheugen, vice-president of the European Commission, sounded a cautious note about a future enlargement of the EUover the weekend, saying, "No new promises can be made." While Bulgaria and Romania have already completed accession negotiations, the EU's commitment to these two countries provided for "a postponement of membership, should [they] prove insufficiently ready", he told Germany's Bild-am-Sonntag weekly. Mr Verheugen, a former enlargement commissioner in the previous Commission, also stressed that accession talks with Turkey, scheduled to begin in October, would be open-ended and might not necessarily end with full EU-membership. | ||
| Posted by:too true |
| #8 To clarify net payments (Source EU Commission 2003): With the rebate: Germany: 7,7 bn UK: 2,8 bn France: 1,9 bn Without the rebate: Germany: 7,2 bn UK: 8 bn France: 0,3 bn It's quite obvious that Germany would not benefit that much, France a bit more. But if Tony renegotiates the agricultural subsidies this would REALLY hurt France (and Germany to a lesser extent). So it was much easier for France to block everything and make Tony look like the bad boy. Well, frankly, the sums we are talking about aren't that exorbitant. But you see the gap between German and British contributions per capita is rather significant (even more considering France of course). |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-06-20 21:26 |
| #7 Bulldog, that should read "the full rebate". The UK (with the rebate) is the second biggest net payer (after Germany). But I guess we agree that not every country can be a net beneficiary. The real problem is France. You have all my sympathies for not wanting to subsidize French farmers. If EU money is put to good use, I'm sure the UK is willing to compromise on the rebate. That's how I understand Blair. The system is rotten. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-06-20 21:09 |
| #6 Blair cannot justify the British rebate any longer Why not? AIUI Britain recieves less per capita than wny other EU member from CAP spending. Why should any one country be the lowest recipient and not receive some form of compensation? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-06-20 18:59 |
| #5 And Germany has beer. Wonderful, tasty beer. And Frauen... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-20 16:35 |
| #4 The unholy Chirac/Schröder only hides that France and Germany actually do NOT have the same political interests. Germany will look to Central and Eastern Europe. France hasn't much to offer except overpriced whine and running cheese. OK Airbus isn't too bad. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-06-20 14:46 |
| #3 but Europe should have common political aims as well Which will boil down to French & German aims. Won't work unless Europe goes for option 1.a.) free market, with free exchange of goods, services and people, and some form of political union (in other words, a US of E, totally like the US of A... but that's a long time off). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-06-20 14:25 |
| #2 After a good thunderstorm the air is much fresher. Blair cannot justify the British rebate any longer BUT he is right about the idiocy of agricultural subsidies. They should be drastically reduced. Chirac won't bite: His stauchest supporters are French farmers. The stupidity of the subsidies is that mostly the big agricultural enterprises benefit from them, not the small farmer with his 20 cows. But the real issue will be to find out where we want Europe to go: 1) A free market, with free exchange of goods, services and people, but no political union (The British Way) 2) A not so free market, with high subsidies, bureaucracy and a political role in a "multipolar world" (French Way) 3) A bit of a mix (current German position, likely to change) My way? Leaning on the British model, but Europe should have common political aims as well, a cohesion of states that goes beyond merely economical issues. Europe is more than a free market. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-06-20 14:11 |
| #1 Hidden in all of this is the significant tension that now exists between "old" and "new" Europe. Interestingly, it is the "new" guys that want to keep the Union strong and expanding and on-budget and with-purpose versus the "old" guys who only want to "twitch" their pecs. Poland and the Balts offered to accept reduced payments from the EU in order to allow the UK to get its usual and entitled rebate. Even that was received as being unacceptable since it would show the "old" rich guys as needing help from the poor "new" guys. Can't have that can we? |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2005-06-20 14:00 |