The EU is no longer a compact unit. That the EU has divided into two, or even more, parts is no longer just a point of view (see this column in newsletter No 10534), it has become a statement of fact. Of course, it is not formally acknowledged that there is a two-speed Europe. Most of the Parliament and the Commission challenge its existence but the need for the eurozone to be managed by the countries which make it up is accepted in practice. And the partition goes beyond the monetary. It is the very idea of European unity that is increasingly dividing member states. The countries of the eurozone, along with a few others which are keen to join, are currently agreeing common rules, which involve large-scale renunciation of national independence, while, for other member states, national interest is openly avowed as the main consideration. This development, which is logically being challenged by the Commission and by the major part of the European Parliament (EP), is deemed by several member states in the Council to be inevitable.
Here is an attempt at a schematic summary of the situation.
European Parliament says there is no need for treaty. The EP dismisses the need for a new treaty on economic governance, taking the view that the legislation which came into effect in December is sufficient and that the golden rule which caps national pubic deficits must be incorporated into the constitutions of the member states. It must not be forgotten that decisions taken outside the institutions framework of the EU do not fall within the EP's ambit as joint legislator - which may go some way to explaining its position. Parliament also wants any member state which is seeking to join the euro to be able to take part in eurozone summits (at least two per year) and says that the president of the EP should also attend as an observer. Nevertheless, everything suggests that the new treaty will receive political approval before the end of the month.
Political disagreements among member states. I am not referring here to the perfectly normal differences over some particular measure or policy direction, but to the differences on the very nature of European construction. Messrs Cameron and Orban have used virtually identical words to highlight that the national interest is the priority.
Being part of the euro, with the concomitant acceptance of its rules, is not an objective shared by all member states: some point to the requirement to hold a national referendum, others declare opposition in principal to the single currency. Enlargement policy, too, is controversial, for example, with regard to Turkey and Ukraine, two cases where disagreements are directly related to differences over the nature of the EU. The situation with regard to several of the Balkan countries is different in principal, but it is significant that the Commission has made provision for extending the provisional concessions already in force (trade arrangements, budgetary support), granted to countries in the region. This is a way of saying that accession will not happen any time soon.
Disappointment in Central Europe? The conduct of the Hungarian government has led a number of MEPs (Mr Verhofstadt, Mr Cohn-Bendit and others) to call for implementation of Article 7 of the Treaty, which provides for suspension of the voting rights within the Council of any member state which fails to respect the values of the EU. According to the leader of the Socialist Group, Hannes Swoboda, no candidate country would be allowed to join the EU if its government conducted itself like the Hungarian government. The leader of the European Socialist Party, Sergei Stanishev, claims that the present Romanian government is damaging basic democratic institutions every bit as badly as its Hungarian counterpart and that the EU should intervene.
It is true that this disappointment is reciprocal, however. A French newspaper (Libération) has published in interview with Catherine Perron, a politics professor in Paris, the title of which speaks volumes: “Central Europe falls out of love with the EU”. The interview shows that, if the Hungarian government might now appear open and cooperative, it has more to do with financial needs than conviction. Ms Perron states that “the countries of Central Europe are the main recipients of European funding”, but she adds: “there is nonetheless a general feeling in these countries of having been dispossessed of political power … The need to assume and to adhere to the acquis communautaire as a whole has strengthened this feeling”. At the same time, however, “there is a great fear of finding themselves on the edge of Europe”. This is a state of mind which explains a great deal.
There are other opinions and views. This column will speak about them tomorrow. (FR/transl.rt)