Union licks its wounds after beef truce is called

Date: 27/06/1996

FLORENCE is the latest name to be stitched on to the battle honours of the Union. The Renaissance city now ranks alongside Luxembourg, Fontainebleau and Edinburgh as venues where truces have been signed after particularly turbulent periods in European history.

Each offered a readily acceptable exit route for a cantankerous member state with its back to the wall, yet looking to salvage some dignity as it tried to put its relationship with the EU back on an even keel.

Each is also proof of the Union's undoubted ability to create and defuse internal crises in equal measure.

Part of the skill lies in drafting a text which allows for so many interpretations that even the oracle at Delphi appears a model of clarity by comparison. And, with the spirit of that master tactician Niccolo Machiavelli in the air, EU negotiators were particularly inspired last weekend.

The formula to end the beef war does not have the constitutional clout of the Luxembourg Compromise and agreement on the use of the veto which brought France back into the fold in 1966. Nor does it have the financial significance of the 1984 Fontainebleau accord which ended five years of bitter wrangling over the UK's budget payments to the Union.

It is also less significant than the formula approved in Edinburgh in 1992 to calm Danish fears over the Maastricht Treaty.

But the common thread running through all four is the ability to lance a festering boil which had infected other areas of EU business.

It remains to be seen whether the Florence formula has signalled an end to the diplomatic war over the ban on British beef exports or will merely be a temporary truce until the terms of the agreement are tested for the first time.

That a beef deal would be struck was never really in doubt after foreign ministers had put most of the interlocking pieces into place at their conclave meeting in Rome just days before the summit.

British Prime Minister John Major had even reassured Italian Premier Romano Prodi and Commission President Jacques Santer over breakfast on the opening day of the summit that an end to non-cooperation was in sight by indicating that the UK was prepared to end its opposition to the Europol deal.

The main question was when the truce would be announced. Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok, whose country was more enraged than most by the Europol log-jam, insisted the final terms of the beef agreement should be worked out by officials in parallel with the opening summit session. He feared that agreement on the European Court of Justice's role in overseeing the work of the criminal intelligence agency could still fall victim to any delay.

In the end, the honour of announcing the end to hostilities at 2.30pm on the opening day of the summit fell to British Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.

“I am delighted that we now have an agreement and that the two objectives Mr Major set on 21 May of ending the ban on derivatives and of securing a framework agreement have now been achieved. In the light of that, our policy of non-cooperation now ceases,” he said.

Seen through the UK's eyes, the deal has raised the possibility of an end to the ban on beef sales to non-EU countries and the prospect of the overall ban being lifted in months rather than years.

For its partners, the only commitment is to examine, not to approve, requests for exports to third countries and some believe the wider ban could be in place until the turn of the century.

“The joke is that the deciding vote will lie with the Poles because they will be in the Union by the time the final vote on the export ban takes place,” suggested one European diplomat mischievously.

Not surprisingly, different summit participants drew very different lessons from the unusual events of the past few weeks. Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene was the first to raise the possibility of sanctions to prevent such behaviour from happening again.

The idea won support from his Greek and Portuguese colleagues, but was greeted with little enthusiasm by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who insisted the EU's ability to act effectively would be determined not so much by what was formally laid down as by the spirit in which countries approached Union business.

“The crude political fact is that you cannot just say a government should not indulge in such behaviour. You cannot stop them if they want to do it,” said a senior Commission source.

Instead, the pragmatists believe another message has clearly emerged - the practical, political lesson that such behaviour does not pay. That, more than anything, is likely to be an effective deterrent to any repeat of the past few months.

Dehaene also led the federalist camp when he told the summit that the Intergovernmental Conference should consider taking qualified majority voting as far as possible in the Union to prevent future boycotts.

“This has made it absolutely clear that unanimity is the worst form of decision-making. It is open to this sort of abuse and has shown how necessary reform is,” commented one EU diplomat.

That conclusion is widely shared, but will inevitably run into trouble amongst the traditional defenders of national sovereignty.

The Commission is the one European institution generally considered by summit participants to have emerged from the crisis with its reputation enhanced. It stuck firmly to its strategy as the political temperature rose and fell, and provided the basis for the final beef agreement.

At the outset, Santer and his colleagues agreed that the issue could best be defused by keeping up the political pressure.

But they also explored legal avenues and were advised by normally cautious senior Commission lawyers that Article 5 of the EU's treaties gave them a strong case against the UK. This stipulates that member states should “abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of this treaty”.

“If this had gone on any longer we would have looked more closely at Article 5. But we decided to keep up the political pressure, rather than become distracted with a time-consuming court case,” explained one senior Commission official.

Despite the general readiness to turn this particularly messy page in the Union's history, few are likely to forget the past weeks.

“This should not have happened and it should never happen again. In a crisis like this, there are no winners, only losers. This unfortunate episode should be a lesson to us all. Yesterday's result could have been achieved quickly and without political damage,” concluded Santer in his personal epitaph on events.

There is little doubt that the patience of other EU governments is becoming increasingly strained as the UK's internal political problems continue to seep into Union business.

Major gained no domestic or Union advantage from his obstructionist tactics, his EU colleagues argue. His authority over Conservative Eurosceptics and the British government's standing in the country are both as shaky as ever.

Most observers believe the beef deal finally negotiated is no better than one which could have emerged several weeks earlier from a more conciliatory approach.

At the same time, the UK has eaten further into its EU credibility. This was perhaps most vehemently expressed by Swedish Premier Goran Persson. Making no attempt to hide his anger, he warned: “There is a very high price to pay for this. The Union is going to remember.”

The comment prompted a predictably spirited reaction from Major, who retorted: “If anyone thinks they can treat us in that fashion, they are in for a nasty shock.”

The Florence summit will be remembered for little else apart from the beef deal. As his government prepares to take up the EU reins, Irish Prime Minister John Bruton concluded this week that the agreement had cleared the decks and allowed normal business to be resumed as soon as possible.

But writing of his countrymen's complex feuds, Machiavelli noted: “Without finding any solution to their quarrels, they would eventually call a truce only to take up arms again whenever the occasion demanded.”

The coming months will reveal whether modern Florence has encouraged a new spirit of cooperation or whether the political schemer's thoughts are as apposite today as they were almost 500 years ago.