Bigger, better, beautiful? is a conference about EU enlargement. There are at least two pitfalls in this theme. First, we may sink into the analysis of technico-administrative procedure and consequences of the enlargement. Second, the discussion may exceedingly focus on the accession countries, their present conditions and potentials in the near future. Hopefully, these, too, will be broadly discussed in Budapest. Find some questions below, however, which might guide the deliberations towards a few more issues.

The Ruffolo Report lends itself as a point of departure, although at the time of writing this, it is not clear at all, which of the steps recommended in the Report to the Commission will in fact be taken up by this latter, and if at all, when and how.

A tendency is felt in the report, too, to do the same that usually happens on the national level, by reducing cultural policy to what is financed and done by the cultural sections in the administration. Although culture is indirectly but deeply affected by a great number of other policy decisions, like taxation, trade agreements, development priorities, employment issues etc; these make up for the latent cultural policy of the EU. Can we, in Budapest, point at the potentials in the original idea behind the Maastricht insertion, namely that every major decision in the EU should have a cultural dimension? How can this important but elusive principle be turned more operative? The alternative of which is sequestring culture into a marginal subsector.  

The room of manouvre of culture gets further limited by the specific EU inhibition, created by the term of subsidiarity, whereby the common policy is not aimed at enhancing European culture (which remains a national right and duty) but at cultural cooperation only. Shall we hear intuitious ideas in Budapest, as to how the Community should act for the sake of culture, without hurting - not diversity, this does not appear to be a real threat; but  - the principle of national (or regional) identities and cultural self-determination?

The Ruffolo report is partly based on a survey of the members' cultural policies. Certainly, whatever is meant by community policy for culture, it will draw on the national policies for the next couple of decades. What will happen: a search for common denominators, for a „European minimum"? Or a quest for a negotiated joint optimum? Or - maybe under the guise of the previous - the adoption of a dominant model?

Indeed, what will a more proactive European policy in culture look like? (Apart from three-year plans.) Quotas and monitoring? Directives and monitoring? More Forums and basis democracy?

The Ruffolo Report acknowledges the generally known fact that most of the Community resources earmarked for culture are allocated via the Structural Funds.

Which are the conclusions to draw? One answer is to leave things as it is. The nice thing about the Structural (and Cohesion) Funds is, that their content is largely determined by the countries and the regions. Instead of any re-centralisation, by means of recommended quotas etc., the degree of freedom in the planning should be preserved, even increased, and the positions of culture should be enhanced by lobbying at various levels and by various ways.

Or else, are there intelligent proposals as to how the desired presence of the cultural dimension can be guaranteed or boosted within projects supported from Structural Funds - especially in case of the new members? If so, should such measures (preferences, guidelines, rules) affect culture in large, or they should address selected domains, similarly to what Culture 2000 does?

Last, but not least:

The Ruffolo report reiterates the notions of common cultural basis, Europe's common cultural heritage, a European civil area, identity born of the encounter between differences etc. One major challenge for the Budapest conference is to refer these notion to the realities of the tripartite Europe of EU members, accession countries and the rest of Europe.

We will probably not know whether the authors of the report were conscious that when they speak of Europe, it has an impact on the continent „till the Ural", regardless of the absence of a formal mandate. Whether a greater awareness of this all-European responsibility will have an effect on similar documents, or their implementation? (Cf. also the requirement to enhance the competitiveness of the European cultural industry.)

Hopefully these thoughts are not too sophisticated for a conference held in the middle of the carnival season, or else, too banal to be mentioned. Surely, speakers and participants will find the right way.

(Modified on 31 January)

Two days before the opening of our conference, between 2:30 - 4:00 pm on Tuesday, a high level panel will discuss the following issues in Paris. (Europe's Cultural Policy Challenges, organised by Friends of Europe and Eurocinema). We may as well add it to our list of questions as a kind of post scriptum.

Three different reform projects in 10 years have failed to turn the EU's Treaty of Union into an instrument that can harness cultural policies to furthering the cause of European unity. Yet public opinion in the EU appears increasingly sensitive to cultural issues as an element in the European integration process. This coincides with the launch at the Nice summit of the EU's most ambitious reform process.

Fuelled by the need to prepare the EU for further enlargement, the new treaty to be agreed by 2004 is likely to include a chapter on cultural policy that could a European cultural identity as appropriate to tomorrow's 25-member EU as to today's 15. What should the principal elements of this chapter be?