Sky and asking. Ricard Yozvyak - about the art of compromises

As a result of the Marathon five -day meeting, the European Union finally agreed to allocate 1.32 trillion euros from the budget of 2021–2027 for measures to combat the consequences of coronavirus pandemic. Many politicians, tired of grueling negotiations, made on this occasion yesterday in the morning, happy statements about the "historical character" reached an agreement and the "new unity of Europe." However, it is obvious that the struggle of different countries for its narrow national interests, and not the unity of the European Union remains the main factor that determines the agenda of this organization.

After graduating from the meeting, the European Union administration went for summer holidays, usually continuing until the end of August. Maybe this year politicians and officials have earned such a long vacation. Having gathered in Brussels last Friday, they were ready for long emotional discussions on painful financial issues. On July 21, at dawn, when the chairman of the European Council Charles Michelle reported on Twitter that the agreement was reached, it became clear: this summit became the second most duration in the EU history, only 25 minutes “without reaching” the famous meeting in Nice, where they decided the issue of the constitutional structure of the European Union.

According to all forecasts, an economic decline in the EU countries, according to the results of 2020, will be 8.3%, and the budget hole that opened as a result of Brexit is 10 billion euros. It is clear that in Brussels, due to this, difficult discussions were expected. During these five days, the leaders of all 27 EU countries rarely gathered for general meetings, the difference in the interests and the inability to coordinate the position during the plenary session were too obvious. Active negotiations took place in various informal groups on the sidelines of the summit, sometimes accompanied by open skirmishes. In the center of the discussion was the question of creating a recovery fund of 750 billion euros, in addition to a regular budget of 1.074 trillion euros, the parameters of which in general did not cause doubt. The funds to this fund should be accumulated at the expense of EU loans in financial markets, and a similar practice, and even on such a large scale, was not previously frequent. The European Commission, like the two largest EU member states, France and Germany, suggested that 500 of these 750 billion euros are distributed in the countries most affected by the coronavirus crisis as grants, and the remaining part as loans.

The gap between the jerky northerners and the southerners suffering from the crisis still exists and no longer becomes

Since a significant proportion of funds is intended for southern countries, they did not mind, but their enthusiasm was not at all shared by the Netherlands and the Austria, Denmark and Sweden in solid with them. These four countries make a noticeable contribution to the EU budget, so none of them was delighted with the prospect of distributing not loans, but grants, which are unlikely to establish strict control for observing the conditions of use. However, when the dust subsided, it turned out that it was the "Skaul Four" that was among the winners: the volumes of grants were reduced to 390 billion, and the volume of loans increased to 360 billion euros. The Netherlands & Co also achieved a decisions on a more strict monitoring of a waste of funds: if one of the EU members has unpleasant questions about how this or that grant is used, the grantee will have to answer them.

The Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte returned to the Hague in a good mood, although some of the negotiation partners probably considered his selfish. My sources on the sidelines of the EU consider Rutta’s negotiations “ruthless”, based on the principle of “divide and rule” and outright lobbying. “The Dutch learned this from the British,” as if he had rushed through the Brussels corridors. Rutte, it is possible, perceives a comparison with the British negotiating stiffness as a compliment, but for many in Brussels it is clear: the gap between the pressing northerners and the southerners suffering from the crisis still exist, and it does not become. Rutte’s stiffness can be explained by the fact that in March 2021 he intends to re -elect to his high post, and populists in the Netherlands could criticize him for too much generosity in the EU. At the summit in Brussels, by the way, it was not without populism: the leaders of the southern countries now and then reproached the EU that the organization was in no hurry to help those who got into coronaviral misfortune last spring. Politicians like a right -winged Italian Matteo Salvini are invariably ready to score points on statements that in Brussels they did not show sufficient solidarity.

In the end, none of the EU leaders went home with an empty suitcase. Even Poland and Hungary, whose governments were severely criticized for serious violations of democratic procedures and rights of citizens who accompanied the fight against pandemia, can expect generous agricultural loans for restoration and development. Despite all attempts to create a mechanism for monitoring the use of additional funds, the final document of the meeting turned out to be blurry and, most likely, will not create severe headache for politicians in Budapest or Warsaw. This is the conclusion that the EU is actually controlled by not continental solidarity, but individual states, which in communication with companions constantly threaten to use the veto or use the tactics of endless negotiation trading.

Ricard Yozvyak - European observer of media corporation Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Opinions expressed under the section may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office