Swimming against the stream. The series of discouraging, pessimistic and, indeed, defeatist positions taken with regard to the situation in Europe, continues. I can understand the dissatisfaction and concerns but it is without any hesitation that I go in the opposite direction to affirm that the ongoing transformations do not mean the failure of European construction or its break-up, quite the contrary. For the first time in many years, the European Union is pushing ahead with the development of a certain number of projects, which have always been included in the objectives but in a vague and theoretical way: we are now in the operational phase. I would like to point out three aspects: a) economic governance of the EU or at least that of the eurozone; b) the gradual harmonisation of national foreign policies, beginning with the creation of instruments, which will facilitate common discussions on current affairs; c) at the institutional level, the strengthening of the European Parliament and the permanent and active participation of heads of government (the head of state, in the case of France) in the strengthening and management of Community affairs.
The list, however, of positive developments also includes other elements, for example, cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, which is an indispensable factor due to the increasing interconnection between areas included within the Community remit and those covered by inter-governmental competences, such as the military sector or approval of national budgets. The EP appears to have gone beyond the stage where it had to strive to affirm its prerogatives because they have now been acknowledged and the national parliaments (at least, a significant number of them) appear to have understood how decisions and orientations should now be discussed at a Community level. I would also like to recall (because it has often been referred to in this column), the proposal made by Jacques Delors to create a European Energy Community, beginning with “strengthened cooperation” between member states that wish to participate in it.
Putting the whole range of innovations into practice is a complicated exercise, which naturally comes up against obstacles, delays and temporary discouragement, but the direction ahead is clear.
The time to move forward. If it were simply a journalist expressing the opinion that developments are positive overall, it would not have much importance but it is in fact Helmut Schimdt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing that give their support to a common text, just as they did during the era when they were preparing the single currency. They indicate that within certain echelons in power, both within the EU and in a number of powerful third countries, there have been efforts made to destroy the euro. The response of these two former heads of state is: “This crisis can in no way be blamed on the excess of European integration but rather, on the lack of it. This current crisis will provide euro zone leaders with an opportunity for implementing economic policy crucial to the sustainable success of the European currency”. They unreservedly approve the strategy agreed on 7 May by the eurozone summit, involving the strengthening of the Stability Pact, sanctions for those that do not respect it and the presentation of national budget drafts to Community bodies before their approval by the national parliaments. They also approve the contents contained within the financial measures implemented by Germany on 19 May (banning certain speculative operations), whilst regretting the unilateral nature of these measures because “their efficiency would have been much greater if they had been adopted in common”.
Making the eurozone summit official? At the same time, Helmut Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing gave their approval to the formal setting up of a “eurozone European Council”, which should “obviously not be the same as the European Council with its 27 members, to prevent stalling tactics and the mixing up of different issues”.
This final point is a very sensitive issue. It explicitly calls for the eurozone summit to be made formal, which has already met twice (on 25 March and 7 May) and has defined measures and orientations that have extraordinary scope for economic and financial governance of the zone. Herman Van Rompuy did not hesitate to invite the “heads of state and government from the eurozone” (our publication simplified this formula as, “eurozone summits”) to these two meetings. Did the president of the European Council have a remit for arranging meetings in which certain members of the European Council would not participate? He did it and no government created any problems, at least not officially, and we can now consider that this instrument exists. Some sources have indicated that Nicolas Sarkozy would be in favour of making this into an official institution, with a secretariat, constituting in practice the economic government of the eurozone. Ms Merkel is said to have certain reservations. Whatever the truth of the matter, this is how the current situation appears.
(F.R./transl.fl)