“I now tend to think that the arrival of Angela Merkel could be very good news indeed for those of us who want a less dysfunctional and more forward-looking European Union.”

I broadly agree, but I think perhaps we should wait awhile before we start uncorking the champagne bottles (or the Catalan Cava).

Rupert has a very valid point. Both Doha and CAP now seem focused on 2014. Curiously the developing countries may be able to sit out this wait better than we can, since they have the future to dream of, whereas we need to reform to keep our systems in tact.

“Never underestimate the capacity of French politics to disappoint.”

Quite, and talking of which the rumour mill is working away. This weekend the name Ségolène Royal seems to have been going the rounds. Any thoughts?

Sarkozy has apparently voiced an opinion: “I’ve always said Ségolène Royal is the most interesting figure in the Socialist party,”

Does he mean, the most interesting, or the most interesting for him to beat? Are we really talking about the serious possibility of Sarko vs Sego in 2007?

The bad news is that we have to wait till 2014 for any radical change (if then). The CAP soldiers on like a crotte de chien on your sole you can’t get rid of. Bussereau was reported today as saying, in Hong Kong, that the money agreed for the CAP in this deal was

“le meilleur resultat obtenu parmi toutes les categories de dépenses”

Barrosso was also reported today as saying that the deal has salvaged Europe’s credibility. Well… sorry…. but when everyone is talking about the need to modernise and dynamise Europe, and then the outcome is a financial framework that carrys on spending half the budget on the CAP up to 2014… need I say more?

She’s had an incredibly good press since the summit, not just in Germany but worldwide. The exasperation with Schroder’s spinelessness was part of it I’m sure, but she seems to have been effective in heading off the very real prospect of a wrecking alliance between France and Poland.

That said, these high hopes are based on a small amount of evidence thus far. Let’s see …

Last week’s Journal du Dimanche poll finds only 1% of voters want him to stand again. Take into account the margin of error, and Chirac’s support could actually be less than zero.
I had assumed that his long, long years defining himself as the staunchest defender of agricultural self-interest might count for something, and that he would have put up more of a struggle. His concession of a genuine review makes sense though if he has now concluded that he will be out of power when the real concessions are forced on France. We might even give him some credit (as a realistic politician if not a statesman) for recognising that a future leadership might make a better fist of fighting France’s corner than he is now capable of making.

Assuming his replacement is better. Never underestimate the capacity of French politics to disappoint.

At any rate, I think the big clincher here is the end of the Chirac-Schröder axis : maybe the “anti-France” axis is better off with a rigid but politically more or less dead French president than with a more reformist but more powerful one. Also important is the fact that Chirac knows now that his dream of a third mandate in 2007 is just that, a dream. Which could have led him to adopt a devil may care attitude when it comes to the budget battles of 2008 or after.

Claus : Perhaps big countries can have good presidencies but the fact remains that Blair’s vigorous attempt to shield the rebate is not the best outset to lead these kinds of budgetary negotiations.

I agree. Whether this particular British presidency can be deemed a success is really a judgement call. It depends in some important way on what the budgetary review of 2008 will achieve : would it yield yet another report to be shelved in the Berlaymont library or some major rearrangement of the EU budget(i.e. less PAC)? Part of my (limited) optimism stems from the fact that I think that the second possibility is a lot more likely now than one week ago.

But maybe I’m wrong (wouldn’t be the first time…), since the wording of the agreement is, as usual, very vague, notably as to the date when a new budget structure could come into force (could the financial perpectives be modified mid-exercice?). And it’s true, as The Economist points out, that the overall budget is very disappointing when it comes to aid to the new members states.

_”First of all, I think the deal itself offers a weak refutation of the “curse of the big countries” argument made by Doug. Sure, the mere existence of a deal doesn’t provide conclusive proof of success”_

A good point. Perhaps big countries can have good presidencies but the fact remains that Blair’s vigorous attempt to shield the rebate is not the best outset to lead these kinds of budgetary negotiations.

Still better news: the departure of J Chirac.
I hope you’re right, and that Merkel might play a valuable part in keeping his eventual successor honest. Schroder’s complicity in the 2002 deal was shameful.