Convergence and compromise. Are the institutional vision of the president of the European Commission and the current way in which the euro zone operates compatible? In his “State of the Union” address, Mr Barroso emphasised the need to get back to the Community conception and, in this, he was largely supported by the European Parliament. At the same time, Eurozone countries are demanding a greater role in the management of the single currency. At first glance, this difference of opinion appears huge. Nonetheless, why should an optimistic interpretation be precluded, which highlights the different possibilities for convergence and compromise?
The declarations of principle inevitably ignore certain aspects, which should in fact be underlined.
The strength of Mr Barroso's affirmation of Community principles largely surpassed the expectations of those who had very often criticised him for a certain submissiveness to the other institutions and the inter-governmental method. In this respect, we only need to re-read our publication EUROPE 10461 and a few snippets of these affirmations, “The Commission is the economic government of the Union… inter-governmental cooperation is not enough to get Europe out of this crisis and provide it with a future. It risks leading to renationalisation and fragmentation and could be the death of the United Europe that we are seeking…” Mr Barroso condemned the unanimity-voting requirement because, “the speed of our common efforts cannot be dictated by the slowest countries. It is currently the slowest countries that are determining the speed limit for all”.
The key question is, therefore, whether these Commission positions in the specific area of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) are compatible with those of the Council and member states. At first glance, the answer appears to be no. There are also the differences that were clearly expressed at Parliament with regard to whom the different responsibilities should be conferred. One MEP considers that the different roles of the president of the Commission and the president of the European Council should be merged. Another MEP, however, considers that the role of European minister of finance should be bestowed upon a European Commissioner. And so on.
Taking into account the real situation. A purely doctrinarian debate will go nowhere, whereas a calm and collected analysis of the situation on the ground enables a number of important observations to be made. When the euro first began, the most important countries in terms of size, wealth and political punching power opposed any encroachment into their respective national autonomies. The real situation, however, began to make itself felt: there was a need to put common economic governance into practice, which encouraged these countries to introduce supranational monitoring, automatic sanctions and decisions taken by majority voting. The respective national autonomies in question were therefore significantly eroded in favour of common mechanisms and decisions incumbent on member states.
There is also the crucial point that, in the management of the euro, financial mechanisms receive support from member state budgets (and from the European Central Bank) and not from the Community budget. National parliaments, therefore, have a say in how matters are managed in this area. This situation involves the direct responsibility and authority of the heads of state and government and, therefore, that of the European Council. Thanks to the spirit of initiative demonstrated by its president, this body is able to meet up as the Eurozone Summit. It has already met up on a number of occasions and decisions at majority voting are not excluded. These aspects of euro zone management have a supranational character to them, although they are really inter-governmental and not Community-directed because financial resources come from the member states.
Can the previous observations contribute towards creating a calm and non-conflictual evaluation of the situation? Only the future can tell. The situation itself is a complex one.
Personal aspect. Personal questions also have to be seen in the calm light of dawn. Caution will be required with regard to any merger of the presidencies of the Commission and the European Council because the former must maintain its autonomy and defend the positions of the College of Commissioners, whilst the latter must help towards establishing compromise. Should a European finance ministry be set up? There is a risk of a duplication of tasks occurring with that of the president of Eurogroup or the individual responsible for this area at the Commission. It is not, however, clear to what extent rivalries in this connection are real or imaginary…
Conclusion: over-dramatising the demands and divergences should be avoided. Understanding, a number of mutual concessions and a rethink about the objective not being about personal success but about relaunching European construction, could help overcome these damaging conflicts.
(FR/trans/fl)