Difficult but possible. The road ahead for obtaining definitive instruments for the future management of the euro will be hard. The EU has until the end of March to obtain them but the difficulties are still considerable. Every member state and each political force is sticking to its guns, convinced that their respective positions are the right ones. From a tactical point of view it is logical that the positions of principle are hardening at the very moment when decisions will need to be taken, each wants to obtain as much as possible. Nonetheless, I do not think that the divergences should be overdramatised and subsequently produce forecasts that are overly negative. I consider it wiser to remain reasonably upbeat and have some trust in the results that the eurozone European Council can obtain at the end of this week, as well as in the decisive session of the entire European Council at the end of the month. If the ambassadors fail to reach a compromise, why should we find it surprising? It is not even at a level of financial ministers that the decisions will be taken. Only the heads of state and government will be able to decide on this.
The EP is defending its powers. European Parliament warnings are also logical. It is demanding that its scope is respected and subsequently underlines that the texts discussed cover most of the economic governance package, a domain in which the EP is co-legislator. Almost all the different political groups have supported a common declaration in this connection. This obviously does not mean that when the time comes they will all support the same positions. Guy Verhofstadt has already provided a detailed description of an alternative project and has rejected the formulas which, in his opinion, are intergovernmental. He is calling for orientations to be based on the Community method and the powers of the European Commission (his project is summarised in EUROPE 10329).
European parties want their voice heard. The European political parties have been just as categorical. I am underlining this fact because I get the impression that public opinion has not yet grasped (in so far as it is not exactly interested in these details) the difference between the EP political groups and European parties. The summit of the European People's Party (EPP) in Helsinki at the end of the last week brought together the presidents of the European Council, the European Commission and the Parliament, in addition to the German chancellor! Is it really astonishing that Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy greeted with a certain amount of sympathy the document they had jointly signed and sent to European Council (our Document 2547 included in EUROPE 10327)? Their presentation of a common document for Friday's eurozone summit was innovative. They are aware that it will not remain as it is, either in this meeting or at the following European Council, but they did not want to undermine this document themselves …
The European People's Party summit adopted a five-point document which, unsurprisingly, covers the need for a global strategy guaranteeing financial stability (€500 billion loan facility), economic growth, job creation and the competitiveness pact.
Socialists divided? In the EPP's final press conference, its president, Wilfried Martens, appealed to the socialists to reject, in the Community institutional framework, the populist position adopted by the Party of European Socialists (PES) the day before in Athens. PES president, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, summarised this position in a press release and backed it up with figures from a study that claims that the Stability Pact prepared by the Merkel/ Sarkozy duo would destroy 600,000 jobs and would severely hamper growth, whereas the PES project would double (or almost) growth and create 8 million jobs in the EU by 2015 (EUROPE 10329).
At first glance, the positions of the two parties appear so far removed that they do not suggest much of a chance of reaching an overall agreement. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that participation in the eurozone (notwithstanding what is initially said in the texts) is not obligatory. It is not an obligation imposed from the outside. Countries that consider it better not to be tied by its rules do not have to participate and can leave. Nonetheless, countries that wish to take part are quite aware of the commitments involved and cannot ignore what European economic governance means and that the rules go much further than coordination and the mutual exchange of national budget projects next year. From Athens to Madrid, even socialist governments in eurozone countries are aware of it and are committed to it.
(F.R./transl.fl)