Today's Date:

Future of Europe

Joint letter from Philippe Douste-Blazy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Stefan Meller, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, published in the “Financial Times” newspaper

Paris, December 15, 2005

Sir, The European Union is facing one of the most critical decisions in its recent history. The largest ever enlargement of the Union to include 10 new members was an unparalleled achievement of political vision. It needs to be consolidated. In addition, the Union faces enormous new challenges that result from the accelerating process of globalisation. We therefore need to settle on the essentials and agree on the EU's budgetary framework for the years 2007-13. The public will not understand our failure to reach a fair and equitable agreement.

Everybody has to make an effort for the negotiations to be a success. Both our countries had accepted the Luxembourg proposal in June not because we thought it was ideal. We believed instead that it was the best possible solution given the constraints all member states have in the negotiations.

After five months of reflection, the UK presidency has put forward a proposal that cannot become the basis of an agreement. In line with it, poorer member states are to make further, substantial sacrifices while one member state, the UK, would see its position considerably improved. As a matter of principle, such an approach cannot be the yardstick for an EU based on solidarity and fairness.

In spite of being critical of the UK proposal, we remain committed to agreement on the New Financial Perspective at the December European Council. It is abundantly clear that for the compromise to be worked out two basic conditions have to be met. First of all there has to be an equitable sharing of the costs of enlargement. Efforts undertaken by individual member states have to be proportional to their wealth. However, the abatement has to be adjusted to take account of the enlargement to include 10 new members as well as any future enlargements.

The UK has been a champion of enlargement. We trust it will also be willing to cover the costs it presents. More specifically, the UK should agree that the abatement cannot be calculated on the expenditures in the new members, with the possible exception of common agricultural policy market expenditures.

The second basic principle of the compromise package has to be that the poorest regions in the European Union should receive privileged treatment and cannot be the victims of the negotiations. In line with the current presidency proposal, Poland, one of the poorest member states, would receive the second lowest economic convergence assistance per capita in the EU.

It would have to shoulder almost a quarter of all savings proposed by the presidency. This would not only be unfair. It would not help the objective of modernisation that our countries shared at the recent summit at Hampton Court. Allocations for the new members have to be considerably improved.

We can agree with the suggestion to review both the revenue and the expenditure side of the budget. The EU has to be capable of adjusting to future challenges. Change is taking place already. The 2003 reform of the CAP is being implemented. A thorough reform of the sugar market has just been agreed, not without sacrifices.

We need forward-looking instruments, such as rural development funds, to make sure that the European countryside is not left behind the globalisation bandwagon. We also need stable rules and principles in the EU. Therefore, yes, we should discuss thoroughly the budget priorities again in 2009 and, yes, we should implement them in the financial perspective 2014-20.

Time is running short for an agreement on the EU budget for the next years. We are committed to working out a compromise provided that all of us make a similar effort. There is one thing we cannot afford. It is the continued wrangling over the budget. The EU needs to move on and the world will not wait./.