Not everyone wants to join single currency. Recent debates at the European Council and those of the European Parliament have carefully avoided taking a stance on the sensitive issue of a two-speed Europe. And yet, this is a matter that has to be tackled, as the gap between the countries of the eurozone and those that do not wish to participate or which do not meet the conditions for doing so continues to grow wider. The eurozone is increasingly self-contained. Its very nature implies and requires an ever-growing degree of joint management, including renunciation of certain significant aspects of national sovereignty. Only the member states that abide by the conditions and uphold the discipline may be part of the eurozone, as no-one would allow a repeat performance of the case of Greece.
The door to the eurozone is open to countries that meet the conditions and stick to the rules, including with regard to balancing the national budget by giving up essential aspects of national autonomy. Some member states that do not yet belong aspire to take that great step, and some will manage it. For others, membership is not an objective due to their geographical position and their priorities. Apart from Austria, the Danube countries, whether already member states or candidates for accession like Serbia, are linked by their shared concern to safeguard the vast region through which the River Danube flows bearing a national heritage of great value from every point of view: nature, wildlife, history, landscape, and lifestyle. The whole of Europe should show its gratitude for this by appreciating and supporting the efforts of those countries. If the notion that the Danube countries have of EU participation is somewhat different from that of other member states, it is
their right.
All European countries are entitled to join. In the meantime, the EU continues and will continue to expand. It aims to take in all those European countries that wish to be a part, something which it has recently proven with its decision to open accession talks with Montenegro, leaving the door open to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case of Macedonia, whatever its name will be in the future, will be settled one of these days, and other candidates will be knocking at the door to come in. Officially, even the fictitious membership talks with Turkey are being continued. Starting ambitions for other potential candidates are more modest, as they seek visa-free entry across Community borders for their citizens and cast covetous looks in the direction of EU financial support. Who could imagine that, within a foreseeable timeframe, such countries, and others also, will be part of the eurozone?
Reflection is needed on the part of the European Parliament and Commission. As I see it, the conclusion of this overview is simple - if the euro is to continue to exist and become stronger, then a two-speed EU is bound to happen. This would not be to the European Parliament's liking, for perfectly good reasons no doubt, but it ought to look reality in the face rather than expressing outrage each time it is not represented at certain gatherings responsible for studying a given aspect of the eurozone's future. The EP should ask itself this disquieting question: Is it reasonable and conceivable that parliamentarians elected in a country that is not part of the eurozone should wield powder over the eurozone's internal management? And should they be able to influence the way it is managed? These two questions deserve to be reflected upon.
In the corridors of Europe, there is talk of similar discomfort within the Commission. Some commissioners whose countries of origin are not in the eurozone would hesitate to vote on papers concerning that zone, and concern relating to a possible new mandate in the future would influence their behaviour.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's far-reaching project. The former Chairman of the European Convention is, to my knowledge, the person who has been the most explicit about the need for a two-speed Europe. He believes that, in practice, this is already the case and should now be “institutionalised”.
A recent position paper strongly reaffirms this view. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (VGE) disputes the fact that the current crisis is of a monetary nature (“the euro is a currency that no user wishes to be rid of”) and thus describes the true causes: “The crisis is linked to speculative developments in the banking system, freed of all regulation under the pressure of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin (US Secretary to the Treasury from 1995 to 1999) and worsened by irresponsible budgetary management by several eurozone states”.
VGE denounces “the disorderly and daily agitation” of those working in the financial markets “most of whom belong to anti-euro lobbies and are thirsting after the profits that a break-up of the eurozone would procure for them”. He considers it “irresponsible that the second most widespread currency of the planet should not have a permanent body for coordinating economic activity and the positions taken by the states using that currency”. The Eurogroup is presided with conviction and talent by Jean-Claude Juncker, he says, but the finance ministers that make up that group do not, personally, have a seat at the European Council where the major decisions are taken. And when it comes to the European Commission, VGE comments that one third of its members belong to countries that do not use the euro, and that an influential minority is opposed to all further progress towards European integration. Under such conditions, he believes, it is impossible to entrust them with managing the eurozone.
VGE comes to the conclusion that it is up to the eurozone states, and those states alone, to avail themselves of the instruments that will allow them to coordinate their budgetary policies and to gradually set in place a symmetrical, economic monetary policy. He suggests:
1) creating a euro Council at the level of heads of state and/or government, which would meet once a month, no Treaty being necessary for this;
2) appointing a secretary general for the eurozone, designated by the heads of government to whom that person would be accountable;
3) overseeing compliance with the commitments made regarding public finances. This surveillance would be organised by the euro Council (taking on board a number of proposals by the European Parliament) and would be ratified by national parliaments.
Thus, the eurozone's institutional structure would be rapidly set in place. This would bring about greater market moderation and would point to the end of the eurozone crisis.
Topical problems persist. Some observers say that a good point of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's project is that it is clear, although it does not provide an answer to everything as he circumvents difficulties linked to the effective control of member states' budgetary behaviour and indebtedness. And these are precisely the sort of problems that are currently being discussed.
Nonetheless, when it comes to principles and with regard to the controversial aspect of the EU's inevitable split into two groups, it does not seem easy to contradict VGE's views - Europe would either have to give up the euro, or it would have to face the fact that “two speeds” are inescapable.
(FR/transl.jl)