Reasons for the misgivings. The “Plan for growth in Europe” (see our bulletin yesterday) was particularly surprising in one anomaly: Germany and France did not sign it. The Franco-German couple has been so chided for taking a leading role in all major initiatives in recent months, particularly regarding strict budgetary discipline for the countries of the eurozone, that their silence over this parallel initiative has given rise to a number of question marks. I use the word parallel because it is understood in principle that the two main planks go hand in hand: (a) radical pruning of budgetary deficits and respect for the discipline of the eurozone for the states which are part of it; (b) relaunch of economic activity.
It is clearly unthinkable that Paris and Berlin can have any misgivings over the principle of relaunching economic growth: Germany takes an active interest in this and France is making every effort to move decisively in the same direction. The Franco-German silence, therefore, can in no way imply a reservation in principle on the general objective of the new document, but reservations on the method and specific aspects of it, together with a certain mistrust of the first signature on it, that of the British prime minister. Sometimes, the devil is in the detail, to which very careful attention must be paid (the full text of the document will be reproduced in our series EUROPE/Documents).
From single market to freedom in world trade. The document is directed at the president of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, and the president of the Commission, Mr Barroso, in the hope of featuring on the agenda of the summit to be held on 1 March. Some of the signatory countries are members of the eurozone, some aspire to it, others are sceptical of it; three of them still have their “triple A” (Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland), others are having economic difficulties. Eight priorities are listed, some of them regarding the completion of the European single market and some to do with relations with the rest of the world, laying emphasis on freedom in world trade.
The “single market” plank borrows largely from the Monti report of spring 2010 on gaps and delays in the completion of the single market proper, including a problem to plug these gaps (Mario Monti held responsibility for this sector when he was European commissioner) and the European Commission's report of June of last year. The “plan for growth” targets practically the same objectives and lays emphasis on the services sector, in which the EU is still an awfully long way from the birth of a unified market. The document also lays down target dates, for example 2015 for a digital single market and, more importantly, 2014 for the creation of an authentic single energy market. This latter objective seems a particularly tall order, not to say unrealistic, that this column will revisit it in greater detail. A European Research Space is also required and, of course, the European patent is listed as a priority, glossing over the reasons for the delay (most of our readers will be aware that the UK is among those responsible for it).
For the freedom of all global trade. The following objective regards the external relations of the EU and, in particular, the opening-up of the markets at global level: free-trade agreements “this year” with India, Canada and certain countries of ASEAN; a new impulse for agreements with Japan and, unsurprisingly, Mercosur (where free trade doesn't even exist between its own member states); specific agreements with Russia and China and so on and so forth. The field of financial services has not been forgotten; but the points raised are fairly technical, so that a thorough read of it is recommended. However, there is no mention of the financial transaction tax (Tobin tax).
The United Kingdom as promoter of European integration? On the basis of the above comments, I believe that the reasons neither France nor Germany has got behind this text are quite understandable. Germany applies restrictions to access by foreigners on certain professions and does not like all of the orientations of the Plan of the Twelve. Mr Sarkozy no doubt finds it strange that the initiative to relaunch European unity is now being led by the countries which do not take part (and have no intention of taking part) in essential aspects of the building blocks of European reality: the single currency, of course, but also the Schengen zone, normal participation in Community expenditure and the action of the City of London against the stability of the union. To say nothing of the fact that Mr Cameron has stressed on several occasions that national interests will always take priority over the other considerations. (FR/transl.fl)