Facts that should be reaffirmed. The euro is regarded as a fact of life that cannot be ignored and a decisive factor in European construction, not only because of the reasons indicated in this column yesterday but also because it helps Europe get its voice heard in the wider international debate on global financial regulation. Europe's voice will only be heard if the EU speaks as a whole and has its own currency. It is true that in international bodies such as the G20 or the IMF, European countries attend as individual countries and this won't change as long as the United Kingdom stays out of the eurozone. European positions have, nonetheless, been created together and the EU counts because the euro exists. Institutions and bodies responsible for the euro are also active participants in the international debate. New rules on which the European institutions are actively working are devised and drawn up for the eurozone and they would not exist if this zone did not exist.
These considerations may appear pointless, because the disappearance of the euro has not been given any serious consideration at all. Nevertheless, they have to be reaffirmed when faced with the ravings of those who assert that the euro is unviable (they are taking up from those who previously announced that it would never exist, including a few Nobel prize-winners). It should therefore be repeated, even if it is self-evident, that everything is based on the fact that Europe has its own currency and will keep hold of it. This affirmation also covers the internal work - the European Commission's proposals, negotiations on them at the Economics/Finance Council and Eurogroup, as well as debates at the European Parliament.
With regard to a few recent developments. The breadth and diversity of the work going on are such that it is practically impossible to provide an overview of it. The fields covered are significantly increasing and our publication summarises these developments as much as possible. The most recent development on which the European Commission (EUROPE 10112) gave its view covers a huge area, including controversial aspects such as the creation of a tax on financial transactions and the possibility of taxing third country products when they enter the EU if they do not respect EU environmental standards. The specific tax on banking was decided by Germany, with the orientation also receiving support from the United Kingdom and France, the objective being for it to become a European tax and to submit it at the June G20, so that it might take on an international dimension. The orientation is clear, the modalities much less so and support from the big member states on the common direction does not signify consensus on the contents.
The European Parliament has called for a tax on financial transactions, from which the revenue would mainly go to developing countries. It only achieved a slight majority on this: 283 votes for and 278 against. The Commission's reflection exercise may be able to clarify this aspect.
From time to time, a few protagonists take things to task and this is always useful. Two MEPs directly involved in the financial supervision dossiers, Sylvie Goulard and Wolf Klinz, have looked at the EP's work on this subject. Seven reports are being discussed and the rapporteurs from four different political groups have worked together to prepare a coherent position that goes further than that of the Ecofin Council. For the details, I suggest reading the article in the monthly Interface newsletter published by the Confrontations Europe association.
The “Verhofstadt plan”. On the subject of the eurozone's future management, Guy Verhofstadt clarified (in an article published by Notre Europe) several aspects including: a) the financing of and mechanisms for the future European Monetary Fund; b) the launch of a Euro Bond Market; c) the way future European economic governance should function - for which, according to Mr Verhofstadt, the European Commission should be directly responsible. These aspects will be the subject of the taskforce, led by Mr Van Rompuy, which is preparing the eurozone's future management. Their work is expected to be finished by the end of the year. Mr Verhofstadt's contribution will be priceless and this column will be returning to this subject.
For the time being, I will underline the part of his text that seeks to prove that no revision of the Lisbon Treaty is necessary: in his opinion, this treaty contains all the provisions required to put European governance into practice, including the creation of the European Monetary Fund and the Euro Bond Market, as he has already suggested. It will also help create strengthened cooperation in this domain, if necessary.
This really is someone who is continually looking ahead!
(F.R./transl.fl)