Should we wait for the hearings of the new commissioners to be completed by the MEPs before we give an overall judgement? Of course we should and we should also await the final vote of Parliament, expected next week, because it is up to the latter to give the opinion. Nonetheless, without waiting for the conclusion, I would like to underline to what extent the exercise has so far, as a whole, been positive for Europe and encouraging, thanks to the tenacity and curiosity expressed by MEPs (despite a few excesses) and the preparation and determination to take action displayed by most of the candidates. The few moments of weakness were inevitable, know-alls can even find weaknesses in Shakespeare, but in my opinion this part of the media, which focused its attention on a couple of personal attacks (which were actually totally unjustified, at least in one case) and creating sensationalism in an attempt to win readers, was totally ridiculous because the hearings in fact enabled several commissioners-designate to affirm their personalities, prove their knowledge of European issues and demonstrate their ambition to help build the European Community. This exercise ought to bring hope and verve at a time when it is all the rage to denigrate European construction.
Clear ideas on financial services. As a positive aspect, I will immediately cite the case of Michel Barnier -not in an attempt to establish any classification, which would be ridiculous, but because his designation provoked such polemic when it became known. This was not because of his portfolio as a whole - the European internal market - but because of one specific aspect: financial services. This is understandable: the regulation of the financial world is at stake and the EU intends to play a leading role. The interests of the member states are partly divergent, according to the strength of the financial industry in their economy, and the big banks do not lack the means to get their voices heard. Mr Barnier declared that “no market, no actor, no financial product or territory should be allowed to escape appropriate regulation and efficient supervision”. He also declared that he would not be taking “any orders from Paris, London or anywhere else”. Were these simply affirmations of principle? Undoubtedly so, but Mr Barnier also outlined his opinion on a number of fundamental aspects, such as supervision, by explicitly affirming that the compromise achieved in December, at the Ecofin Council was not positive and that he would defend the Commission's initial position on the powers of the three future European supervisory authorities. Once the rapporteur for this dossier at the European Parliament, Sylvie Goulard, takes a similar position and Parliament is co-legislator with the Council, developments will prove interesting and this column will return to discuss the matter.
Has the City of London anything to fear from the new rules? Mr Barnier's reply contained a quotation from Adam Smith: “The market cannot function without rules or without a certain ethic”. Mr Barnier added that “it is not in the interest of the British financial industry, which Europe needs, to demand public funding to repair the damage created by crises caused by the absence of transparency and supervision”.
A welcome condemnation. As well as the financial services dossier, Mr Barnier took an explicit position on other aspects of the internal market that have sometimes been dragging along for years, including: the guarantee for all citizens to have access to quality “economic services of general interest”; a solution to the obstacles which continue to hinder the functioning of the European patent; product traceability, particularly those from third countries, in an effort to guarantee quality and fight counterfeiting; effective implementation, in all member states, of the well-known directive on the liberalising of services, which is positive for workers and the economy if it is correctly applied.
But what's the point of continuing with this list? I would like to invite readers to reread the comprehensive report of Michel Barnier's hearing published in EUROPE 10056 and keep it at one side to follow its practical application.
I would also like to add a sentence, which made me jump for joy: “Speculation on food is scandalous when there are a billion people going hungry in the world”. The fact that it is possible in the US and elsewhere to create purely financial speculation on food prices, without possessing even a kilo of the stuff and provoking a fall or rise in prices (and worsen the situation of those going hungry) is one of the scourges of our society. I would have liked to have heartily embraced Mr Barnier when he uttered these words - fortunately for him, this wasn't possible.
Tomorrow, I will continue with these considerations regarding the MEPs' hearings of the commissioners, even though they are still going on and the final vote does not occur until next week.
(F.R./transl.fl)