When differences of opinion have a positive effect. The mechanism of reciprocal concessions at the most recent European Council gave rise to a balance of commitments: no member state was able to secure what it held as a priority without in exchange having to concede something considered vital by its neighbour. The result is an overall, well-balanced step forward by the eurozone, even going beyond the expectations expressed the day before. I am talking of the eurozone and not of the EU as a whole, because the effects of the results achieved on the cohesion of the EU as a whole are debatable: there are those (myself included) who would argue that this is essentially one further step towards a two-speed Europe; other observers see it as a consolidation of the EU as an entity. This column will return to that aspect, taking stock of significant opinions.
So, to come back to my starting point: the reciprocity of concessions in various fields was the driving force that made the overall agreement possible. No country was able to get what it wanted without accepting, in one way or another, that which was essential to its neighbour. The rows and criticisms which accompanied some of the orientations often implied the defence of specific interests.
Even so, the overall result is the relaunch of European integration. The effects are, in many cases, positive for the countries of which efforts are required, because they will lead to the end of the abuse and waste which so burden public expenditure and will make the fight against financial speculation more rigourous and effective. Certain concrete effects will come about very quickly; for example, France will ratify the Treaty on budgetary discipline (known as the Fiscal Compact), as it has secured parallelism with the recovery programme.
Projects for the future, most of all. We must not, however, forget that most of the decisions made and directions agreed upon are not for immediate application: the agreements in principle relate mainly to courses of action and to the launch of projects which are still to be finalised. The "report of the four" (Messrs Van Rompuy, Barroso, Draghi and Junker) will be translated into operational proposals by the end of the year. The financial transactions tax will materialise in the form of a project between the participating member states, which will not be a walk in the park. The system whereby the member states will be able to leave certain categories of investments out of their budgetary deficits is to be clarified by the European Commission by the end of this year. The single energy market is to become a reality in 2014. The stalemate over the European patent has been lifted, thanks to a compromise over its headquarters, but it will take time for it to get up and running. The mechanisms to control abusive interest rates on the Treasury bonds of certain member states, which Mario Monti so struggled to secure, will be clarified and set in place.
It will take time, courage and a great deal of goodwill until we are living in this more subtle and intelligent world in which financial speculation is brought under control and which will make the EU more effective and more democratic.
The role of Mario Monti. I would like to add a few words about the coup de théâtre played out on Thursday night, when, with the support of the Spanish prime minister, the Italian prime minister refused to rally behind the results already achieved. This did not come as a surprise to everybody, because François Hollande and a few other heads of government subsequently indicated that they had already been informed. In Rome the day before, Monti announced that he would have continued the discussion until Sunday, with the aim of reaching agreement on the instrument he was calling for before the financial markets opened this Monday. He went on to explain that he had no intention of using this safeguard, but that he was looking for the “announcement effect, which would push interest rates in the right direction”. As we know, it took all night for the new mechanism to be developed and agreed in principle.
The objective is to make it impossible for the”market” to be unable to impose abusive interest rates on the Treasury bonds of a eurozone country which is honouring its commitments in terms of its budgetary deficit. This condition (respecting its commitments) is vital, but often neglected. No eurozone country would be protected by the “Monti mechanism” unless it itself corrects its past errors and budgetary shortcomings.
In my view, Mario Monti's position in itself contains a shortcoming on one point: terminology. Instead of referring to the market in general, he should be more explicit and openly denounce financial speculation and the behaviour of those who indulge in it. I will return to this subject, which is not a question of form, but refers to the plague which is largely responsible for the current imbalances and which needs to be fought as is.
(FR/transl.fl)