Talks at the European Council on economic governance are currently taking place. Whilst waiting for its conclusions, it is interesting to observe to what extent attention is already shifting to other developments and we can now consider that the European budgetary semester beginning next January, as well as the new rules, will become legislative texts by the summer.
European Parliament role in future “sanctions”. The respective powers of the European Commission and the Council, with regard to application of sanctions against member states that have failed to respect the updated Stability Pact, have been the subject of far reaching analyses and have created a certain amount of polemic. It is up to the Commission to propose sanctions - this is clear, but will qualified majority be necessary at the Council to approve or reject the sanctions? The more or less automatic nature of the sanctions depends on this question. The Commission proposed the second formula (the reverse majority rule) and the majority of member states agree. Nonetheless, the Franco-German declaration goes in the opposite direction.
It should not be forgotten, however, that this procedure is not established by the Council alone and is subject to Parliament-Council co-decision. In Tuesday's debate at the EP's economic and monetary affairs committee (EUROPE 10244), Sylvie Goulard, the rapporteur for the sanctions aspect, declared that “neither the European Council, the French and Germans at Deauville, nor Mr Van Rompuy's taskforce have the power to decide alone. No definitive decision can be taken without agreement from the Parliament”. No rules will be imposed by this opaque power known as “Brussels” but the rules will be “debated in public and there will be an opportunity to express all the different feelings on the matter”. Ms Goulard also said that when the time is right, “it would be judicious for the sanctions procedure to include a public phase before the Parliament”, which will give the country concerned a possibility to have a hearing in public and for the EP (where the government and opposition of each country are represented), to express itself.
Hypothesis of swift revision of the Lisbon Treaty is opposed. Two days ago, this column said that the Franco-German demand for revision of the Lisbon Treaty to be speeded up would not be the subject of a decision in the current session of the European Council, particularly because the Commission, the Presidency of the Council and Mr Van Rompuy were reluctant to take a position on the matter. In a personal capacity, the vice president of the Commission, Viviane Reding, was not so reserved about the question. In statements made to Die Welt and Le Soir she affirmed: “It seems to me to be irresponsible to put pipedreams on the table with regard to the new treaties. We need to defend the euro and do so immediately. We cannot wait for a hypothetical change to the treaty. We needed 10 years to put the Lisbon Treaty in place and we are not going to wait 10 years to implement the measures it contains. The Lisbon Treaty clearly allows for the whole system to be protected, whilst putting pressure on member states that might abandon the path of reason”. The Germans do, nonetheless, have constitutional reasons for calling for a revision of the treaty and this column will return to this matter as soon as the summit has defined its position.
Economic governance will only be the beginning. Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, the president of Our Europe and a former member of the European Central Bank board of governors, considers that the current talks at the European Council are important but are only the beginning. He recognises the importance of the European budgetary semester, the strengthening of the Stability Pact and extending the surveillance measures: it will not just be budgetary policies that will be monitored, but member states' external imbalances will also be taken into consideration. This will obviously apply to countries in deficit but also to member states that have a surplus. It is all very well and good but it is only an initial phase because supervision and coordination of economic policies will not be sufficient on their own.
The EU, or at least the eurozone, will have to develop instruments that will enable it to become an economic policy actor. Evolution will be a gradual but unavoidable process. According to Mr Padoa-Schioppa, the EU already has or is currently developing several component parts needed to make the Union a promoter of growth: consolidation and relaunch of the internal market, budgetary reform, the creation of own resources and issuing Eurobonds. Together, these elements could constitute a genuine Community programme for growth and have a stimulation effect. A tax on commercial transactions or on the banks, for example, could help to both provide resources and counter excesses observed in the financial world. This is a comforting vision of the future.
(F.R./transl.fl)