The right formula? We want everything right now - but is this the right formula? For a parliament which would only have powers of impetus and encouragement, it might be. But for a parliament that has real powers of co-decision, it is much more doubtful. Nonetheless, this is the path chosen by the three main political groups at the EP with regard to the results of the European Council currently discussing new EU monetary and financial organisation. The socialist, liberal and green groups opted for a maximalist route in Tuesday's debate and in each case, the leaders of the three different groups had their say: Martin Schulz, Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (EUROPE 10277). In my opinion, this contains both good and not so good points. Calling for the European Council to reach an immediate decision of principle on all the different aspects, including eurobonds (which has not yet sufficiently been developed), enables the orators to come across in a flattering light but it also contains a risk, which this column has already denounced: it opens the way to a negative assessment of this summit and subsequently facilitates the task of those who are only too happy to decry the inefficiency of the EU, whilst in fact fundamental decisions, including an amendment of the Treaty, are going to be announced.
Guy Verhofstadt himself distributed his own text in inverted commas and in it we can read: “This week, EU leaders hold the future of the eurozone in their hands. They should take four precise measures for stemming the contagion: an enhanced Stability and Energy Pact; an unlimited and permanent crisis fund; a eurobonds market, which distinguishes classical and subordinated debt; and genuine economic and fiscal convergence”. Three of these four demands on a level of principle, are going to be largely satisfactory but the one on eurobonds will have to wait because at least two member states are not ready and they constitute the two main economies of the eurozone. Daniel Cohn-Bendit is in such a hurry and in his opinion, a decision next year “will be a little late”. Martin Schulz is on the same wavelength. Joseph Daul, the president of the EPP Group has deplored the cacophony of national positions and has defended the principle of eurobonds, while suggesting that it is first of all necessary to explain “where and how” they can be put into practice.
One stage. The Presidency of the Council indicated that this subject would not be debated this week. According to Didier Reynders, the president of the Ecofin Council, “eurobonds is a debate that, for governments, has come around too soon”. Jean-Claude Juncker, the person who gave the project an almost institutional character, given his role as president of the Eurogroup, admitted that although he wanted the summit to discuss this issue, “the political conditions for a decision are not yet sufficiently in place”. Nonetheless, he has acknowledged the validity of the project because he is encouraging member states experiencing deficits to rectify their situation so one day they will be able to participate in a less costly eurobonds issue.
The president of the Commission, Mr Barroso, argued against holding an immediate debate because there was no possibility of being able to make a decision yet, as the right conditions did not exist. He explained that the Commission was still not putting forward a formal proposal because this would divide the Commission itself and, more importantly, the eurozone, and could provoke a negative reaction on the markets. Mr Barroso is therefore urging, for the moment, concentration on the subjects where consensus is already developing. Is it again necessary to indicate that there is broad consensus and that this includes accomplishments, which, just a few months ago, were considered totally impossible? Let's not lose sight of what this summit really means, where decisions of principle will be sufficient for the summit to be recognised, one day, as a significant stage of European construction.
This column has already tried to prove that an additional reflection on eurobonds is not only necessary but also useful. It has underlined that this is “an idea that will go far”, which will help develop other initiatives and influence the behaviour of the financial community. Following the hypothesis of guaranteeing eurobonds with the gold reserves of member states, another proposal aims to finance management of them by way of the well-known tax on financial transactions. Once again, this idea rears its head in a new context. In the European Parliament debate, the idea of separating the two categories of banks was even relaunched, with those financing the economy and those managing capital through speculation.
Guy Verhofstadt and other leaders calling for an immediate decision at the European Council can rest assured: there will be a debate and it will be a fruitful one. The whole weight of the Parliament will then be brought to bear. (F.R./transl.fl)