Let us try to make a little sense of all this. The latest developments in Europe have led to some confusion between what is to be considered as already achieved (or almost), what remains controversial, and what is supported by a large number of member states while being rejected by others. To this must be added the guiding principles shared, in principle, by all - albeit every member state in its own way, depending on its individual political predilections.
Little has been achieved. Only a few points have already practically been achieved. These are:
- Project bonds allowing a number of predefined infrastructure projects of European interest to be funded. These European bond issues limited to €230 million are not to be considered as a first step towards the eurobonds that Germany refuses. The Commission considers this first European issue will allow projects to be launched for a value of €4.6 billion.
- The considerable increase of EIB (European Investment Bank) capital - some of the reticence remaining in overall negotiation is of a purely tactical nature.
- Use of the unspent part of the annual allocation from Community funds. Recipient member states are often not able to present projects likely to be selected and the overall allocation entered in the annual budget is not used. Instead of being given back to the member states, funding not allotted to specific needs remains available for funding other projects.
All the other issues - of which the list is long - are still on the table. By the end of the month, the treaty on budgetary discipline is expected to take effect; the document on growth should be ready with its provisions for application; and, necessarily, the situation in Greece will have been clarified.
Key matters remain to be negotiated. Fundamental and somewhat revolutionary decisions are therefore still to be taken, and are largely subject to the results of imminent political events such as the next Greek and French elections. France must elect its parliament and the result of the vote will determine the degree of autonomy that the new president of the Republic and his government will have for actually carrying out what they have announced. At present, President Hollande is finding it difficult to negotiate compromises in Brussels and, when it comes to Greece, the country's future will be largely determined by the election re-run.
It is a well-known fact that the possibility of Greece leaving the eurozone has been a subject of great discussion and has been looked at very carefully. Analyses underway can be interpreted in two different ways - either they point to a development considered as likely, or they aim to inform the people of Greece of the impact that their upcoming vote will have. As the Greeks are obviously free to make their own choice, they must be reminded that they run the risk of losing their place in the eurozone, as financial support depends on compliance with the commitments made.
Does one need to repeat that leaving the eurozone does not mean leaving the EU? Warnings made to Greece by the countries of the eurozone and the Community institutions should not be considered as arrogant pressure placed on a country or people, but rather a statement of fact. The eurozone will collapse if the countries that are part of it do not stick to the rules. There are instruments to support the countries in difficulty and these have been put to extensive use - but if any country fails to uphold the necessary disciplinary rules, then it must leave the eurozone because, if it does not, the whole building will fall to pieces. This does not mean there is a lack of understanding of the difficult situation faced by countries in difficulty, or that there is insufficient support. In the case of Greece, for example, those who discover what has already been paid out to assist that country, and the cost of extending that support, cannot fail to be impressed. Stylistic compositions about what Greece has brought to the European civilisation carry no great weight as it is out of the question that Greece should leave Europe. It may leave the eurozone but it would remain in the EU and in its institutions, maintaining the rights that result from this and even benefitting from broader support.
Ignorance or a lack of reflection, sometimes accompanied by a dose of ill faith - that is what characterises some of the positions adopted. Allowing a eurozone country to reject the discipline that pertains to that area is disastrous for all the others and weakens the credibility of single currency. The irregularities of Greece automatically have an effect on the zone as a whole to the detriment of the different populations, to the benefit of financial speculators, and at the risk of scuppering the most ambitious project ever undertaken for the unity of Europe. Empty phrases and rhetoric are pointless and gratuitous.
Essential compromises. Member states and political forces admit that compromises are essential. In four weeks' time, the new structure of Europe must be redrawn. (FR/transl.jl)