Franco-German positions up for debate. The European Parliament (EP) is quite satisfied with the work done by the Van Rompuy taskforce and the report it has produced, but it is far from pleased with the joint Franco-German statement. In the debate in Strasbourg, the attitude of the Socialist Group gave the impression of being determined to too great an extent by national situations: Socialist parties are in opposition in both France and Germany, so their spokesman in the EP was not going to congratulate Ms Merkel or Mr Sarkozy. But to refer to the German Chancellor and French President as “a little couple” has more to do with internal arguments than an objective assessment of the Franco-German agreement. The critical remarks from Guy Verhofstadt, always to the fore in defending the European idea and the Community method, were effective. Another of the Chamber's star players, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, also confirmed his role of a proponent of the Community method that has been compromised by a Franco-German hegemony.
How can the importance and significance of the joint positions of the two major powers of the euro area be challenged anyway? Without agreement between these two, there can be no management of the euro or European economic governance. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy could, however, have been less authoritarian: instead of a written statement which gives the impression that the contents have already been established, it might have been preferable for the two countries to agree on joint guidelines, which they could later argue in debate within the Community. At any rate, some basic points of the statement have not been accepted as they stand either by the Council or the Commission, and even less so by the Parliament. And the Presidency of the European Central Bank has expressed reservations over the Van Rompuy report (even though his reservations have been lost in the presentation of the report, see following pages).
Controversial points. The Franco-German positions will have to be debated at European level, and some points will certainly be revised. It is true that, without Germany and France, the euro area would cease to exist - even Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Cohn-Bendit are aware of this. But two member states, no matter who they are, cannot decide everything between themselves. The Commission with its prerogatives is there; Parliament has the same powers as the Council on legislative and budgetary issues; the European Council is also a Community institution, with its permanent president. It is true that Ms Merkel said in Berlin that what was agreed between France and Germany must also be agreed by the European Council, but some points are being challenged in part. These include:
1) The direct responsibility of the Council in the assessment of how member states conduct themselves in matters budgetary and on other aspects of the Stability Pact, the role of the Commission being to assess and propose (or, indeed, recommend). Nowhere in the Franco-German statement is there a question of the majority needed to overturn a Commission proposal (reversed majority).
2) The automatic nature of the sanctions, but after the Council itself, by qualified majority, has decided that a member state has failed to take the necessary corrective measures six months after an excessive deficit procedure has been opened.
3) Revision of the Lisbon Treaty, a move which for France and Germany, is essential in order to: a) introduce suspension of the voting rights of member states guilty of serious infringement of the basic principles of European Monetary Union; b) replace the crisis instrument designed to deal with the Greek problem (which will expire in 2013 and which Germany does not intend to renew without changes) with a permanent robust mechanism to deal with possible future crises. The review procedure would have to be quick as the two innovations would have to come into force before the end of 2013.
It is not just in the Parliament where rapid revision of the treaty has raised concerns. The Council Presidency has carefully avoided commenting; the European Commission, Barroso has said, has said only that it has “taken note” of the Franco-German call because, for the moment, it intends to concentrate on the substance of the issues.
At any rate, the European Council will not comment on the essential points in the Franco-German suggestions at its meeting on Thursday and Friday. There is talk of a debate at the summit next March, when Mr Van Rompuy could present firm options on the new crisis mechanism to be set up.
A point of linguistics: the Franco-German statement uses the term European economic government. Mr Van Rompuy no longer needs to balance between governance and government.
(F.R./transl.rt)