Situation has evolved. Not even a day can be lost if we want to meet the planned deadline: negotiations on the inter-governmental treaty on budget rules and economic governance for the eurozone will be resuming immediately. In the meantime, however, the situation has evolved on two different levels: it is no longer the same as that defined during the night of 9 December by heads of state and government, minus the United Kingdom. The most controversial aspects can be summarised in three different points:
a) “Economic government”. There are two different theses in this regard. According to the first, this body simply consists of heads of state and government from the eurozone. Nicolas Sarkozy pointed out that these leaders are directly elected at the highest level and are responsible for making essential decisions on the euro. They also have a permanent president, the president of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy.
According to the second thesis, energetically defended by Mr Barroso, economic government should naturally be by the European Commission, of which he is the president. His position is supported by a large majority in the European Parliament.
b) Indispensable treaty? Concerns have been expressed about the need for a new treaty. Following a detailed analysis, a number of legal experts have said that the broad range of instruments the EU has at its disposal already enables it to meet the objectives it seeks to attain. This thesis has also been supported at a political level by Roberto Gualtieri, one of the three MEPs representing the EP in the group in charge of developing the new treaty.
c) Title. The possibility of not retaining the intergovernmental adjective for defining the new treaty (a name that creates the impression that there is an agreement between governments rather than an EU instrument) has not been abandoned. Last month, in the first meeting of the negotiations, a number of participants mentioned an international treaty and other adjectives were also used. This possibility could be mooted again.
The structure of the EU is at stake. The main divergence, given its influence on the structure of the new treaty, relates to what kind of economic government should be set up. This is not a question provoking institutional jealousy between the European Council and the European Commission: this divergence involves the very structure of the future EU. Mr Sarkozy is convinced that a two-speed Europe is unavoidable and that participation in the euro (whether this is already occurring or planned) will represent the criterion separating the two categories of member states. In his most recent public speech he affirmed that “another Europe is currently being reborn: that of the eurozone, based on economic convergence, budgetary rules and a taxation system”.
The French president even exaggerated a little by adding that “nothing had been previously planned with regard to economic convergence in euro countries”. I can imagine that when Jacques Delors reads this sentence he will either do a somersault or smile because he had placed the economic dimension before the monetary dimension (the definition of his document is quite unambiguous: EMU, economic and monetary union). From the very beginning, he refused to accept that his project became, in the absence of the economic dimension, a project devoid of its purpose. Mr Sarkozy provided the current conceptual definition: “Shared exercise of sovereignty by democratically elected governments”.
A very clear separation. The terminology is just superficial but what really counts is the EU that develops from it, namely, the thorough and practical application of a two-speed Europe. Separation between these two categories of member states will be clear. On the one side, there will be the Europe of the euro with its strict rules and indispensable discipline, which involves the automatic loss of solidarity and support to countries that do not respect these rules, and on the other side, member states that have fewer responsibilities but also fewer rights. This conception of a two-speed Europe represents the only way of safeguarding and even extending European unity. It means that it will not have to renounce its goals to develop genuine integration.
If this conception of a two-speed Europe is put into practice, the repercussions will be considerable on many different aspects of European construction. This column will be returning to this issue.
(FR/transl.fl)