Mario Monti is a former Italian prime minister and economy and finance minister, and a former European commissioner.
Charles Michel has hit the ground running. Since taking office on December 1, the new president of the European Council has shown enviable speed and commitment in tackling what is arguably the thorniest exercise in the lifecycle of the EU institutions: hammering out the bloc’s seven-year budget.
Luckily, as a Belgian, Michel is well suited to the exercise of trying to forge compromises and finding creative solutions to intractable problems.
But as a committed European, I am torn between wishing Michel success in achieving a quick agreement and wishing that he would push the EU to agree to a more solid and forward-looking budget — even if that means walking away from this week’s summit without a deal.
Since the last budget was agreed in 2013, the European Union has been confronted with challenges that it could not have foreseen seven years ago.
We’ve had to deal with the rise of populism, Britain’s departure from the bloc, and a U.S. president who actively speaks out against European integration. Our security is increasingly at risk from autocratic regimes in Russia and Turkey, terrorism, cyberattacks and the U.S.’s weakened commitment to NATO, as well as the weakening of global institutions, mass migration and the technological dominance of China.
The negotiations currently revolve around the notions of “net contributors” and “net beneficiaries.”
Add to these challenges the fact that the new Commission under President Ursula von der Leyen has put forward ambitious political priorities — explicitly endorsed by Parliament and Council — and you get an idea of just how daunting a challenge the EU faces in the years ahead.
But if that’s what’s going on in the real world, politicians — as they are wont to do — prefer to see things through the lens of what they describe as “political realism.” That’s especially true as heads of government meet in the European Council to hash out compromises on the direction of the EU — with an eye, if not two, on their electoral interests back home.
The negotiations currently revolve around the notions of “net contributors” and “net beneficiaries.” This frames the discussion as one between winners and losers, rather than one about common EU goals, such as European defense or protecting people’s privacy on digital platforms, for example.
As a result, there’s a very real risk that the EU will march into the 2020s with an ambitious set of goals and a budget that won’t allow it to deliver on them: inadequate in size; archaic in its allocation of money to traditional policies, rather than new policies to address Europe’s place in the world; too rigid over time; and obsolete in its financing.
Ursula von der Leyen speaks with Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel | Olivier Hoslet/EPA
If there is no agreement after this first round of negotiations, Michel should propose that the European Council ask the Commission to present a new proposal that is consistent with the political priorities set out by von der Leyen. Unanimity would not be required for this to happen. A new proposal could be presented at the latest before the next European Council.
This first summit would not have been in vain. It would provide uniquely important input from national leaders on which the Commission can reflect.
The EU needs a budget that reflects the key priorities of the Commission, including the Green Deal, a digital Europe and technological independence.
Adopting a budget that doesn’t allow the EU to pursue its ambitions would amount to raising a white flag.
If the EU wants to keep populism at bay and thrive on the global stage, it can’t allow itself to be chained into a rigid financial straightjacket. The long-term consequences are too dire to risk a quick compromise.