Two days ago, our readers received the full text of the draft “Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union” (Europe/Documents No2557), as well as an analysis of the changes made to the draft, ahead of the last technical discussion (next Wednesday) for preparing political deliberations. There are just a few comments I would like to add.
(1) Name. The term “Treaty” has been used rather than “Agreement” or “Pact”, but this aspect could still change at political level. None of the adjectives used in the preparatory phase (e.g. “intergovernmental” or “international”) have been chosen, which is a wise move as the risk of misunderstanding or ambiguity has been eliminated. No adjective is needed.
The objective and the nature of the Treaty are defined as follows: stability, coordination and governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. The acronym EMU thus takes on true significance, after being superfluous for many a long year as the “economic” part had never before been fulfilled.
(2) Rejection by parliamentary delegation. This delegation played an important role during talks, to the extent of casting doubt as to the very timeliness of the new Treaty. Guy Verhofstadt and Roberto Gualtieri have regularly kept the public informed on parliamentary reservation and remarks, which is only logical as the Parliament will not take part in deliberation on the talks as the draft will be submitted to the Eurogroup and to the European Council. The EP will voice its views in plenary session in due course. Its delegation has already anticipated the grievances that will be up for discussion, such as the fact that the current draft does not comply with the Community method and is not compatible with the revised Stability Pact (already in existence as a result of in-depth negotiation between Council and Parliament). That is why Gualtieri had openly challenged how appropriate it was to have another text, given the existence of the Stability Pact and other texts already under debate or announced by the European Commission.
(3) Terminology. The draft Treaty, of which the official text is only in English, finally uses the correct terminology, giving up the use of “fiscal” when budgetary problems are concerned. The draft speaks of “budget rule” and “budgetary position”. One can but hope that the term “fiscal” will thus finally be put to one side when speaking of budgetary matters, in French and in the other languages, as in English. Budgetary discipline has no connection with fiscal discipline, and upholding uniform or harmonised budgetary rules does not mean fiscal harmonisation. On the contrary, one knows just how much discussion is carried out by each member state concerning their VAT systems. Budgetary discipline logically implies fiscal measures allowing economic policies to be coordinated, as well as compliance with rules on deficits. The new version of the draft Treaty is clear and explicit on this matter, largely amending the previous draft. The text is presented in a way that facilitates comparison.
Increasingly striking differences between member states' inclinations
Differences between member states are highlighted by the dissimilarity between the new draft Treaty and the proclivity and behaviour of some member states. The Treaty radically strengthens supranational obligations and procedures. Participants undertake to abide by compulsory and uniform disciplines, and failure to stay in line automatically triggers sanctions mechanisms. There are differences when it comes to the powers held by the different institutions, but the level of commitment and the mechanism for sparking off sanctions are explicitly set out in the draft.
In parallel, a number of governments firmly assert that national interests and member state autonomy are priorities. The prime ministers of the United Kingdom and Hungary have used almost identical terms on the matter. Community circles, on the other hand, underline that all are under an obligation to comply with Community rules and to the commitments taken, pointing out that the European interest and national interest are not in reality separate, and that it is essential for European unity to be strengthened as, when all is said and done, this will be to everyone's benefit. It is not clear how these two very different ideas can be reconciled, and how disagreement between member states can be avoided. (FR/transl.jl)