Facing new challenges

In the international media, many commentators have noted an apparent irony in the transition to the UK presidency of the EU. This is that while the UK was accused by many of having been responsible for the Council's failure to reach a compromise agreement on the Financial Perspectives (the EU's budget for 2007-2013), it is the UK which is now entrusted with the task of steering the Council towards the required and crucially important consensus on its financial framework after 2006.

The irony is there but this does not imply that the stand taken by the UK a few weeks ago is in contradiction to the path that it must follow now. In his recent speech before the European Parliament, Tony Blair confirmed indirectly what had already been stated specifically by Jean Claude Juncker a few days earlier, namely that the failure of the recent summit was not the result of differences of opinion on the figures, because these differences had almost been ironed out.

In the position adopted by Mr Blair, the issue was not about seeking a more or less satisfactory compromise on the figures, but of steering the Union's expenditure towards the new directions that, certainly in the opinion of the British Prime Minister, need to be given to Europe.

Mr Blair was very explicit on this point. "We cannot agree on a new financial perspective that does not, at least, set out a process that leads to a more rational Budget. People say we need the Budget to restore Europe's credibility.

"Of course we do. But it should be the right budget. It should not be abstracted from the debate about Europe's crisis. It should be part of the answer to it."

Mr Juncker had already, on his part, acknowledged that the new Financial Framework must be one that can live up to the present and future challenges of the EU, and which responds to the priorities of the EU citizens. It may be said that Mr Blair has brought in the additional consideration that it cannot be a framework that merely reflects compromise agreements reached in the past, however appropriate they might have been at the time.

Instead, the Council must be willing to endorse a veritable forward-looking exercise that is ready and appropriate to address the reform of all aspects of the budget.

As indicated clearly in its declaration of its priorities for its six-month EU Presidency, the UK sees the reform of the CAP as being of central relevance. In one of the first paragraphs that describe the priorities of the UK Presidency, one can read:

"An important part of the budget reform will be the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). The UK's starting position has never been that it should simply be abandoned or slashed overnight. We need a properly planned process of reform building on previous changes to ensure European farming can meet the challenges of globalisation."

However, the CAP needs to be reformed to allow the gradual shifting of additional financial resources to those areas where they can have a greater impact in support of growth and the generation of new jobs.

In the words of one commentator, Mr Blair must be given credit for having shifted the debate from one on budget figures to one on the future, indeed purpose of Europe. His well-known oratorical skills were again at their most effective in his address to the European Parliament. It is worth quoting some of his telling comments.

"Europe is in the midst of a profound debate about its future. The issue is not between a 'free market' Europe or a social Europe, between those who want to retreat to a common market and those who believe in Europe as a political project.

"This is not just a misrepresentation. It is to intimidate those who want change in Europe by representing the desire for change as betrayal of the European ideal. It is a mindset that I have fought against all my political life. Ideals survive through change. They die through inertia in the face of challenge."

"We talk (today) of crisis. Let us first talk of achievement. When the (second world) war ended, Europe was in ruins. Today the EU stands as a monument to political achievement. Almost 50 years of peace, 50 years of prosperity, 50 years of progress.

"Now, almost 50 years on, we have to renew. There is no shame in that. All institutions must do it. And we can. But only if we remarry the European ideals we believe in with the modern world we live in.

"If Europe defaulted to Euro-scepticism, or if European nations, faced with this immense challenge, decide to huddle together, hoping we can avoid globalisation, shrink away from confronting the changes around us, take refuge in the present policies of Europe as if by constantly repeating them we would by the very act of repetition make them relevant, then we risk failure.

"Failure on a grand, strategic scale. This is not the time to accuse those who want Europe to change of betraying Europe. It is time to recognise that only by change will Europe recover its strength, its relevance, its idealism and therefore its support among the people."

The first two ministerial meetings to be convened under the British EU Presidency were on employment, held on Thursday and Friday, and on competitiveness, to be held tomorrow and on Tuesday. In the meantime, it has also been announced that the British EU Presidency will be organising an informal European Council, in the autumn.

The subject for discussion, among the Heads of State and Government of the EU25 members, will be the future of the EU with particular reference to the European social model. It is accepted and it has often been declared that Europe must not only be competitive and strong in a globalised world but, at the same time, it must also retain its strong social dimension. In the words of Mr Blair:

"(Europe) needs a social model for today's world", one that safeguards a strong social dimension but which is adapted to the new circumstances of globalisation and the increased competitive pressure from which Europe cannot escape but which it must be able to face. This has been rightly labelled as a "dilemma"; one which looms large in the minds of most EU citizens and which therefore must be given the space it deserves in the envisaged debate on the future of Europe.

As I was concluding my article, news came in about the London bombings. In the face of the death and injury of so many innocent people, it is very difficult not to comment.

Political leaders in Malta as well as throughout Europe and beyond have all expressed their condolences to the victims, their support to the British people and their steadfast stand that terrorism will not be allowed to dictate our life.

I will not try to add to what they have already very aptly said and will restrict myself to one consideration that ties in with what had been the theme of my article so far.

In his speech to the European Parliament, Mr Blair specifically mentioned the threat of terrorism and he identified it as one area that is central to the concerns of European citizens. It is also an area where a unified approach at the EU level is likely to be much more effective than the action by any one country individually.

The British EU Presidency has emphatically stated: "Europe is stronger together on issues such as terrorism, organised crime and illegal migration." It has also listed as one of its priorities that it will take forward the EU Counter-Terrorism Action Plan including measures such as the European Evidence Warrant, which will enable, once it is implemented, law enforcement agencies to access quickly important evidence from any other part of the EU.

Terrorist acts like those of last Thursday are times for sorrow but they are also calls for action that we might do all that is in our power to stop them from happening again.