Very existence of Euro would have been compromised. The avalanche of criticism directed at the orientations selected by EU Heads of State and governments for Euro-zone “”economic governance” is justified: it is true that the orientations are insufficient and in some aspects lack clarity and raise a number of concerns. Nonetheless, at the same time, these orientations represent, by the very fact that they exist, a turning point in European construction, which has finally recognised the necessity of strengthening the economic dimension in the EMU (Economic and Monetary Union), which is indispensable for the balance and very survival of this self-same Union.
Why go over these concepts that were already discussed in EUROPE 10107 and 10108? Because criticism and misgivings not only leave out the “historic turning point” (on which I had highlighted perhaps a little too emphatically) but also, and above all, what would have happened if there had not been an agreement on relaunching economic governance. I believe that the lack of consensus on this subject could have led to the Euro's demise. The single currency can only exist if its stability is underpinned by discipline and if this discipline is respected by the countries that participate in it. The shortcomings of a member state, which only represents a very limited part of the economic power of the Euro-zone led to a considerable collapse in the value of the single currency.
The demand to strengthen EMU's economic dimension is now recognised as a crucial aspect of Euro management. While criticising the “declaration” of 25 March by the Heads of State and governments in the Euro-zone, we should not forget to what extent the Euro has already transformed Europe: life styles, travelling between countries without having to change money, the facility of financial transactions, everything has become simpler and more European. The countries of the EU that are still not part of this zone are dreaming of nothing less than to join it, together with the deadlines (sometimes illusory) they are hoping to respect: Estonia in 2011, Bulgaria in 2013, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania in 2014, Poland and Romania in 2015 and the Czech Republic with the more realistic 2017. In Euro-zone countries, young people are no longer aware of what this means to their daily lives because they don't know what the situation was like before.
Everything still to be discussed. On the condition that the general framework is taken into account, all criticism is welcome and even useful because it is true that there are still a lot of questions pending. It is possible that Jacques Delors himself (who has always denounced the weakness of EMU's economic leg) is dissatisfied with the way in which this dimension is envisaged. His vision includes a balance between possible sanctions and solidarity and currently, this balance is unclear. Everything still needs to be defined: the new budgetary discipline, commitments to respect by Euro-zone countries, sanctions for those that do not respect these commitments and relations between this zone and the EU as a whole (this aspect is particularly obscure for the time being). It should never be forgotten that common governance should apply to Germany itself and its economic policy will be discussed as much as that of the other member states. All these aspects and many others will have to be discussed by the task force Mr Van Rompuy is in charge of setting up. It is the subject of fairly secret negotiations and its composition will not be easy to work out. Mr Van Rompuy, however, will ensure respect for the end of year deadline.
Olli Rehn's simplified summary. The European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs has simplified the situation and evolution as much as possible, in three phases: a) put out the fire ignited in Greece. In principle, the fire brigade is there to: b) use the Lisbon treaty instruments. He mentioned the possibility of the Commission sending “warnings” to member states and, above all, the common examination of national budgetary laws before their final adoption, by pointing out that this aspect had been “a taboo for a long time”. He also indicated that the 2003 Stability Pact crisis had been provoked by Germany, France and Italy, which, together, had opposed any possible sanctions of budgetary rule infringements and c) a rethink, in the long term, regarding possible amendments to the treaties for strengthening economic governance. We are aware that amending the Lisbon treaty is opposed. This will be one off the subjects for discussion by Mr Van Rompuy's task force.
(F.R. / transl. rt)