After the shame of last week's bitter recriminations, when the Poles and other new members offered to relinquish their financial entitlements, Mr Tony Blair faced a particular problem when he addressed the European Parliament yesterday. The rhetoric was very good but does it mean anything?
Mr Blair engaged his critical audience rather than hectoring it. He found the right tone in which to deliver his priorities for Britain's forthcoming EU presidency. Having acquiesced two years ago in the reform of the Cap, he is rightly blamed for the debacle of the last summit. Yet, he is the only EU leader who has recognised and articulated the malaise among the citizens of Europe, including the French, the Dutch, even the Irish, concerning the future of Europe.
On balance he succeeded well yesterday in his task. By concentrating on the need for a substantive policy response to the problems facing Europe's states and citizens, not a catalogue of institutional solutions, and by deftly rebutting stereotypes of Britain's own policies, he struck the right note and received an enthusiastic response.
But it remains to be seen whether this will make it easier for Mr Blair to advance his reformist agenda with other EU political leaders over the next six months. The depth of distrust towards him from the 10 new member-states matches that of the French and German leaders. British diplomacy will have a difficult task repairing the additional damage done by the late linkage of Cap reform and the British rebate.
The Taoiseach Bertie Ahern rightly dismissed it as "dishonest" in the Dáil. Without delivering Britain into the euro-zone, as a real measure of commitment, it may transpire to be merely the old story of confusing national interest with European reform and assuming that your way is better.
Mr Blair sought to persuade EU parliamentarians of his sincerity by asserting his passionate pro-Europeanism and setting out a vision of integration as the best way to handle globalisation, ensure social gains and assert European political priorities on issues of foreign policy, defence and immigration. He denied that his policy reform agenda betrays the European ideal and warned his fellow leaders they risk failure on a grand scale if they refuse to debate it openly. He reminded the MEPs that a social model in which there are 20 million unemployed, fewer science graduates per annum than in India and cutbacks in funding for the knowledge society of the future is hardly worth defending. He sought to deflect criticisms of his approach to the EU budget by saying agricultural reforms will come gradually, not all at once.
However, he failed to subordinate his transatlantic relationships in favour of European interests. And, in the six months of his presidency, he will have to abandon many English national obsessions to convince Europeans of the bona fides of his vision and leadership of the EU.