Against false image of the EU. After three columns focusing on economic governance and the supervision of financial activity, I would like to add a few personal comments.
This column is sometimes criticised for its overall positive and optimistic tone, when the majority of public opinion is dominated by discontent and pessimism about Europe. I will attempt to re-establish a certain balance. Firstly, I would like to demolish the false image of the EU as a species of monster imposing its will and gobbling up the different national identities. The door to leave is ajar: any member state can leave the EU. The EU has never initiated any candidacy. In the beginning it brought six countries together and all subsequent accessions were strongly sought after and often pushed for by the candidates themselves. The United Kingdom had to overcome three vetoes; Spain patiently negotiated over a ten-year period. Candidates are continuing to knock at the door and they are allowed in if they fulfil the conditions and respect the rules. The image of some kind of monster invading third countries is ridiculous. One has to apply to join, everyone has a voice in the institutions and the weakest are given support. Countries are free to leave.
The second element: I believe that Europe is going through a difficult but creative period during which it is building the basis, despite the enormous difficulties, of future economic governance and control of financial activity. Europe is seeking these goals and will attain them; if one or other of the member states does not accept the rules for them, it can remain on the sidelines. The rapacious European monster is an invention of those who find it more convenient to attribute their own failings and mistaken behaviour to the EU.
Despite the difficulties, progress is being made. That said, it is obvious that not everything is perfect and that the institutional way in which it works is complex and still partially in the breaking-in period. It is not easy to get 27 countries to agree, together with the different political forces making up the European Parliament. Dramatising the respective positions is inevitable and partly understandable because everyone is convinced that their position is the right one. Progress is, however, being made. A few weeks ago, Mr Barroso pointed out how many recently acquired results appeared impossible just a few months before. Last month, Mr Van Rompuy said that we should not consider that the nature of the European Council obviously means that it will support intergovernmental positions. The institution over which he presides is capable of leading a more open policy than one resulting from national interests, and it is not because one represents a state that one does not have a sense of the general European interest - certain decisions made by the eurozone countries have proved this. At the beginning of the week, Joseph Daul, the president of the biggest parliamentary group called for a message to be sent to Europeans “testifying to the confidence in Europe's ability to innovate and rejuvenate competitiveness and subsequently help develop growth”. On Wednesday, the Parliament examined its position on monitoring financial activity. Obtaining an agreement with the Council will not be easy but those who are already announcing failure will perhaps have to take a step backwards. Other significant progress regarding financial discipline has also been made with regard to the rules applicable to bankers' bonuses and orientations for the European Stability Fund. These signals inspire confidence.
Developments in Germany are real. I also believe that we should stop criticising Germany for its position in 2004/2005, when together with France, it managed to get the Stability Pact watered down, in an effort to avoid being in infringement of the rules. On the contrary, I believe that we should welcome the development in Germany's position and accept co-ordinated European intervention in favour of eurozone countries in difficulty, together with a reinforcement of sanctions. Faced with misgivings from the public and certain political forces in Germany, this change was not easy and Angela Merkel required a few weeks to bring it about. It is true that implementation of the European support and protection system would have been more efficient and less costly if it had been swifter. But a revolution in less than three months - is it really all that slow? Without a converted and convinced Germany, nothing would have been possible; it remains the essential pillar of the edifice and the debate on further development has begun.
Future financing is being prepared. At the same time, the complicated but essential dossier on the EU's future financial perspectives has effectively been opened. This is linked to the dossier on Europe's own resources, relaunched after years of silence. Alain Lamassoure, the president of the Parliamentary budgets committee, has a number of ideas and plans, and vital ties between the European Parliament and national parliaments are being fostered in these domains. All these reasons indicate why systematic pessimism should be rejected and not confused with progress in European unity. (F.R./transl.fl)
European Parliament plenary session