Leaving out the facts. Criticism, even if it is harsh, is always useful. Commentators who believe a rapid budget recovery in Greece is impossible, that the country does not have a permanent place in the eurozone, or who are sceptical about the very existence of the single currency (see this column yesterday) are right to express their criticism and doubts. They are, however, washing their hands of the euro a little too easily and forgetting what it has contributed to the European construction and Europe's position in the world. The weaknesses and errors they denounce are real and their analyses are an incentive to rectify them. I have no time for the pseudo-philosophers who claim that Germany appears to have abandoned European unity to unite with Russia or who go as far as claiming that it is now Putin who is pulling the strings in Europe (“the Soviet experts of yesterday and the Russians of today cry victory”). Serious analyses, however, should not leave out the facts, which sometimes appear to be ignored, that the euro is indispensable and no serious alternative exists.
What would be at stake. The euro has transformed the European way of life. The necessity of changing money every time we travelled from one country to another in Europe, make border declarations, in addition to the volatility in the value of national currencies - the younger generations are unaware of all this. Even the scrapping of border controls would be unable to resist a return to the past. Now, when we cross a border, we are not even aware of it. Without the euro, it would be necessary to change money to have a cup of coffee in a neighbouring country. And what calculations would have to be made to work out the cost of a meal or any other purchase? Commercial transactions or those linked to services would be a real headache, with the different currencies changing from one day to another. What should be said about the benefits the euro has brought to less stable member states? Since the currency has existed, they have benefitted from rates of interest for their loans, which they would never have had with their national currencies. Simply belonging to the euro has allowed them to finance their public spending in favourable conditions. The authorities have largely wasted this benefit but its potential still exists: France raises finance for itself on the markets at rates that are identical to those for Germany. We are also aware to what extent EU countries that are not in the eurozone are fighting to be allowed in - this is their number one demand.
Beyond the economic aspects, the political significance of the euro as an element of European unity is impossible to calculate because it is immeasurable.
Essential conditions. If we acknowledge that the euro is essential to the European construction, we should subsequently deduce that there is a need to respect the indispensable conditions that ensure its existence. This is the weak link in some of the criticism that appears to ignore requirements such as:
1. Respect for the rules and behaviour guaranteeing stability of the euro. It was enough for a single member state with limited economic weight to infringe the rules and cause the value of the euro to fall sharply for all. Stringency is not about harsh punishment, it is quite simply a prerequisite.
2. Definition of clearer and tougher rules and greater supervision. The facts have proved that the current rules can be circumvented. The system of controls must therefore be strengthened, including those for monitoring statistical data.
3. Increasing the penalties. Suspending Community funding to countries that infringe the rules would not be appropriate because it would aggravate the situation of a country in crisis and a people in difficulty. We should, instead, move towards the suspension of voting rights. At first glance, the exclusion of a country from the eurozone would appear unacceptable because the Greek case immediately springs to mind, although Greek implication should be ruled out due to timetable and other fundamental factors (such a rule would not exist in the future): the Greek government is not rejecting the rules, on the contrary, it is firmly committed to respecting them. A country, however, that refuses to respect the rules will have no other choice but to leave.
Recognised requirements. These three categories of requirement have, in principle, been recognised by the heads of state and government in the eurozone and putting them into practice will be at the centre of the work currently being set up by Mr Van Rompuy's taskforce. They are not hurtful towards less economically solid countries, which are precisely those that have most to gain by taking part in the eurozone. Nonetheless, if a country notices that the obligations linked to the single currency are incompatible with the mentality of its people, it can choose not to be part of it. There is nothing dishonourable with such a hypothesis. Who would dare to think that the values of the people who have not joined the eurozone are inferior to those of participatory countries? But whoever joins must obey the rules. That's all there is to it.
(F.R./transl.fl)