Give it a decent funeral

On the aftermath of the French and Dutch “no” to the Constitutional Treaty of European Union, the 25 heads of State met in Brussels, on that occasion the European Council declared:
“The citizens express worries and reservations that should be taking into consideration. It is, therefore, necessary to proceed with a due reflection about this happening. This reflection period would be used to carry out in each of our countries a wide debate, with which citizens, civil society, social partners and national parliaments will be associated, as well as political parties. (…) We made an appointment for the first semester of 2006 in order to proceed with a global appreciation of the national debates…”

A wide debate? To which citizens, civil society, social partners and political parties will be associated? Political parties? One almost feels like say nothing deserves to be said such is the shallowness of the words. The debate does not exist, it is not promoted, it does not have interest neither from potential promoters nor from potential participants. The Portuguese Prime Minister signed an empty, subjective and discouraging declaration of intentions, in which the small print seems to affirm in a loud voice: “the Constitutional Treaty died, it is buried and is irrecoverable. We are only going to try and recover some parts to see if we get along together at 25. Also because the current treaty, the treaty of Nice only triggered debate for a single reason: the need for its revision.”

The fact is that the Constitutional Treaty really did die, and the later the burial, the more commotion it will cause. The Constitutional Treaty only could come alive if all the Members States of the European Union had ratified it. France said “no”. The Netherlands said “no”. Czech Republic postponed the referendum that was supposed to be in June 2006. Denmark postponed the referendum supposed to be on the 27th September. Ireland also delayed the referendum, just as Portugal did. The United Kingdom delayed the referendum and the parliamentary ratification. And Sweden delayed the latter.
The Constitutional Treaty will not come into practice. Perhaps it will be possible to make the most out of some less polemic novelties, namely on what concerns the simplification of treaties and the transparency of the European Union. Just give it a decent funeral. As quickly as possible.

Money: Wanted

In the European Union (EU), with the terrorist tension in turmoil, the difficulties in economic growth and the sensitivity of the questions related to immigration and border control increasing, the concept of Independent State has gained terrain to the idea of Member State ( “Member-State”, and therefore, co-responsible for group decisions and for the success of their implementation). Only this explains all the tension about the EU’s budget, that is, about 1% of EU’s product (a national budget is usually situated between 45 and 50%of the national product). With the reinforcement of the importance of nationality and the difficulties in growth and in job creation, the “old buddies” have started counting each euro. Looking at the “old” 15 (not counting with Luxembourg), I will briefly refer to a basic difference that, among others, structures the relationship between States in the EU: there are those that pay and those that receive, that is, some Members States are net contributors for the EU’s budget, while others benefit from the referred budget.

When they seat at the negotiation table, the difference between those who contribute for the thin budget of the EU and those who benefit from it over and over again is clear. If I give the money to someone, I can demand some conditions. If I receive the money, I can, in as much, be a “good student” (I can also be a “bad student” here and there as long as such behaviour does not turn into a rule on the eyes of those who pay me, running the risk of having my nice sponsor simply stopping the payments). It is because of this (but not only) that only the more uninformed thought that Germany could be fined for having a deficit of about 4% of the product. It will be enough, through the German perspective, having offered its national currency to be ran together with those gentlemen and ladies of the south Europe that deserve little trust and to having been, since always, (and by far) the biggest net contributor (in absolute values) to the communitarian budget. “Enough! The Second World War ended 50 years ago and we (Germans) have enough problems with our economy and our development model.” On the other side of the barricade we have “nuestros hermanos” who want to be big, to be in all the photos and to always have a word while, simultaneously, also wanting to continue to receive funds, because they are still poor, and cannot just suddenly enrich, in a purely statistical way. It is a schizophrenia that limits, for now, Spanish ambitions (in the EU; not in Portugal).

So, who is giving out the money, wanting to control its destiny? From Germany, the United Kingdom, France (not much, in relative terms), Netherlands (a lot, too much, taking into account its dimension), Sweden, Denmark and Italy (little). And for whom does the money go to, not wanting to irritate their financiers? It used to go to Ireland (that went from a “country of cohesion” to the second richest country of the EU in terms of per capita product – just after Luxembourg), it goes to Spain (the main beneficiary in absolute terms), to Greece (theold poorest member of the old poor members of the Union) and, of course, to Portugal (you guessed it: the current poorest member of the old poor countries of the Union; poorer than the two richest of the ten relatively poor countries in terms of the EU average that entered the club on the 1st May of 2004: Cyprus and Slovenia; and very soon poorer than two others: Malta and the Czech Republic).