Following the August break, I will kick off my commentary on European issues by quoting some of the leading activists in the European movement, who explain, justify and set out views that will I expand upon in my column next week, focusing on practical matters rather than big ideas.
1. European economic governance already exists. Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, said: “Like me, the members of the European Council believe that the European Council must act as an economic government because it is the only body with the necessary political energy to take courageous and difficult decisions”. Van Rompuy unusually uses the term “economic government” when speaking in French (the above words were spoken in French) and “economic governance” when speaking in English; showing that he thinks they have the same meaning and there's no need to split semantic hairs over it. To be clear: European economic government/governance already exists. It is an EU institution and naturally respects the powers of the other EU institutions.
2. There may not be a formal European Council for the eurozone, but in practice things are done as if a European Council were already in operation. The French idea of setting up a special European Council for the eurozone is not needed. Van Rompuy says that it is within his powers to convene separate meetings of eurozone heads of state. He puts it very simply: “I am pleased to invite you to a meeting of heads of state and government of the eurozone”, to which he adds the date and purpose of the meeting in question. He has already made use of this on two occasions, both of which meetings achieved highly significant results.
3. How compromise operates. Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), commented on draft legislation on surveillance of the financial industry: “Everyone knows that the suggested solution was not necessarily the best in the view of each of the parties involved. It is not exactly what we (the ECB) suggested at the start. But it has the advantage of representing a consensus among the various governments.” A general comment by Tommaso Padoa Schioppa on this subject: “When there is nothing, then anything is progress.” I myself commented that the solutions decided upon should not be compared with what some of the negotiators see as the ideal solution but instead with the situation before the decision was made. The way the negotiations worked demonstrates the effectiveness of the European Parliament taking a strong but constructive view and the Council of Ministers being willing to go along with it, within reason.
4. The overall goal. In the financial and economic field, the most important thing is the clarity of the goal set forward by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in his condemnation of a “world where speculators come before entrepreneurs, where it is standard practice to gamble with other people's money, to make fast bucks without any effort and without creating any jobs or wealth. The sky-high yields demanded destroy the future. We have to rid civilisation of experts who sit around and talk among themselves, each discussing his own speciality”.
5. Policy tools but no policy as yet. In the field of foreign relations, Herman Van Rompuy robustly rejects the idea that the institutional innovations (the high representative and the European diplomatic corps) mean that the EU already has a foreign minister and that a common foreign policy already exists. “If we act as if the EU had a common foreign policy, we will fail at everything. We must implement a series of policies, agree on issues like Iran or the Middle-East and seek compromises on a case-by-case basis, one issue at a time.”
6. “Differentiation.” The term was coined by Jacques Delors to destroy the idea of there being different categories of member states over and above the legal distinctions between enhanced cooperation and other modes. Delors, the former president of the European Commission, explains: “Would we have been able to start the Schengen process (free circulation of individuals without border controls) in 1985 if we had had to wait for everyone to agree?” The decision was taken by five countries at first and then others gradually joined the Schengen zone, which now contains all of them apart from Ireland and Great Britain. “Would we have been able to launch the euro in 1991 if we had had to get everyone to agree? Only eleven of the fifteen countries backed a single currency and met the necessary conditions. Something that works for nine or fifteen countries simply does not work once you reach twenty-seven or more.” Jacques Delors explains that the European Energy Community he had mooted could take the form of “enhanced cooperation”. In a European Union joined by even more member states, only “differentiation”' makes it possible to achieve ambitious new goals. Compulsory unanimity would block the path for all.
(F.R./transl.fl)