Those really responsible. The indulgence towards those who do not respect their commitments is often easy to understand, but sometimes it's rather excessive. It is particularly noticeable in the domain of finance - with regard to the euro, criticism is especially aimed at those who respect the rules, whilst understanding is reserved for those who do the opposite. Let's be clear - support for those in trouble is normal, indeed it's a duty. What is more, at least three quarters of the legislation on the euro is dedicated to this support. But the reversal of responsibility is perhaps excessive - everyone knows that the current crisis is essentially the result of excessive deviation from the rules. Solidarity with those in trouble is easy to understand but it is accompanied by a certain degree of demagoguery, as if to say: “As far as I'm concerned, I support the weak”. This is a noble attitude, as long as the finger is pointed at those who are truly guilty.
It shouldn't be forgotten that the reality is almost always very different from the superficial interpretation. In fact, those who bring about the problems and disregard the rules of the euro are not “the weak”. They are much rather the dishonest political authorities who bring about national absurdly large budget deficits for their own advantage - and those who benefit in particular are the speculators, those blackguards of the financial markets.
I would far prefer more rigour with regard to the speculators and financial tightrope walkers to the forced and excessive defence of those whose are in fact responsible for breaking the rules - to the detriment of their people and all the countries of the eurozone.
Interesting remarks but… I don't agree with those who oppose the “two-speed Europe”, but I acknowledge the value of certain remarks from a few of them. Let me recount the observations that Jean-Guy Giraud gave me, who presides over the French movement of European Federalists: “To formalise the division of Europe into two politically and economically distinct groups would be an error in history. It would be particularly dangerous to weaken the mechanism for integrating into the EU the former Communist countries, whose internal balance remains fragile.”
The theory of the two groups is, in Mr Giraud's opinion, dangerous - for example with regard to the project on the financial transaction tax. If this tax is introduced by certain member states, and not by others, its product would slip from the Community budget and the notion of the EU's “own resources” would be destroyed.
The “two-speed” approach is getting stronger. Despite Mr Giraud's remarks, and of others too, I remain convinced that in practice a two-speed Europe already exists and that it is inevitable for the future. It is becoming increasingly unavoidable because of the recent news on what has been happening in Romania, the surprising tendencies of the Hungarian government, some of the approaches of the new Serbian government - a candidate for accession and at the same time stronger and stronger with regard to Kosovo, which is also an accession country although several member states don't even recognise its existence…
In these conditions, how can one not recognise that the deepening of European unity would quite simply be impossible without the two-speed formula? How can one not recognise it at this moment in history when the president of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, is advocating a “European minister of finance” to be given the power of veto on national budgets, and when the five most powerful member states have announced an agreement with the United States on an automatic exchange of information on the accounts of private individuals set up abroad… ?
Europe's fault. The taste for blaming Europe for world problems sometimes goes beyond the reasonable. The MEP Rachida Dati (EPP, France) said with regard to the tragic conflict in Syria: “The weakness of Europe will not be forgotten or forgiven… 19,000 people have died, that's the weight to bear for the weakness of the EU!” Just think about it - the deaths in Syria (which have since increased) are not first and foremost the fault of internal conflicts, religious rivalries and the desire for power of the regional chiefs; they're our fault. And why not other conflicts in the world too? A bit of rhetorical emphasis, and we'll feel proud to have denounced Europe.
Here is some more irrefutable reasoning - Ronald Gillet, who lectures at universities in Paris and Brussels, said that we should go back to the drawing board with the system of management of the euro “which has demonstrated its limitations with regard to Greece”. The cause of the Greek problem, then, would not be breach of the rules of the euro but the gaps in the system of management of the single currency. This reasoning could perhaps be extended to the past budget policy in Italy, Spain and other countries, as well as to speculation in the world of finance - it's the management of the euro which is at the root of the problems, national behaviour counts for nothing. Just think about it.
(FR/transl.fl)