Between the EU and the USA… The news on the meetings/debates between the two candidates for the presidency of the United States shows that Europe has virtually not been cited at all - either by Obama or by Romney. A very broad interpretation of this is then either that Europe no longer counts on the world chessboard, or that there are no quarrels, no fundamental differences and no urgent problems to be resolved between the USA and the EU. Which interpretation is right? At the risk of standing alone, I opt for the second.
On the role of women, let's steer clear of ambiguity. In the ongoing quarrel on the place and role of women in Europe, confusion between two radically different aspects must first be ironed out - on one side, the appointment of a woman within a Community organism (the governing council of the European Central Bank); on the other side, the draft of Vice-President of the Commission Viviane Reding for a Community mechanism introducing - in all member states - the obligation of a 40% quota of women on all bluechip company boards.
The first question concerns the functioning of Community institutions - it's up to them to decide on this. The majority of the European Parliament is calling for the appointment of a woman to the above mentioned governing board, while the Council of Ministers has designated a man. And the governing council of the ECB would then be composed of 23 men. The campaign for a woman is led in the European Parliament by Sylvie Goulard, who was previously adviser to the former president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and who now plays a key role in the birth of European legislation on economic and monetary union. She has explained that it is not a question of people but of principle - the EU is in the middle of fighting (in Tunisia, for example) for the respect of women's rights, and why would it not then do it in its institutions? Together with other MEPs, she has given the Council an informal list of valid candidates who are active in the area concerned. She has said: “It's not the names which are missing, but the will to change”.
On the other hand, Astrid Lulling, another MEP, considers that the Council must maintain its position and that the Parliament “is in many respects illegitimate”.
A political and psychological mistake? As far as the Reding project is concerned, it would be both a political and psychological mistake, in my view. One of the grievances that some national political forces and a part of public opinion holds against the EU is that there is an excess of European intrusion into national affairs. Why and how should the EU impose the number of women to whom private companies must entrust certain responsibilities? The media have rushed on this intention coming out of Brussels - we have been entitled to lists of women who have personally renounced responsibilities in all domains. In politics we've had Axelle Lemaire who turned down her appointment to a ministerial post in France; in entertainment we've had Grace Kelly who turned down her career as an actress to get married; and in sport we've had the tennis champion Kim Clijsters, who is now married and a mother, and who stopped her career twice. Of course these examples have no meaning because the individual choices would remain free anyway, whatever the European law. But we can see the form that the debate has taken.
Elsewhere, within the European Commission itself, Mrs Reding's draft has received a largely negative welcome, and it's the female commissioners in particular who are against it. The college will give its opinion on 14 November and I don't believe that much of the initial draft will remain (see EUROPE 10716) although in the Parliament quite a lot of support, sometimes described as unconditional, persists.
Whatever happens, this debate is useful for clarifying European competences in relation to national competences.
A specific eurozone budget. The objections of Alain Lamassoure - the chair of the European Parliament's budgets committee - to the creation of a specific eurozone budget must be taken into consideration. Mr Van Rompuy will have to take account of them when he submits his views on this to the European Council in the near future. Let me recall Lamassoure's objections - the specific budget that is planned would have an intergovernmental nature; its financing would be based on resources taken from the EU's normal budget; and this budget would be linked to the budgetary perspectives for the 2014-2020 period (see EUROPE 10716).
Mr Lamassoure is not opposed to the idea of a financial instrument reserved for the eurozone and member states who want to join it, but he considers that it is unacceptable for it to be autonomous. It must all the more be an annex budget, fed by specific resources and used for spending that is for as much. Yet this financial instrument must be submitted to Community rules including the budgetary competence of the European Parliament. Mr Lamassoure rejects then the formula of a separate budget reserved for the eurozone.
It is nonetheless evident that the revenue from a tax introduced by part of the member states - this is the case for the Tobin tax on financial transactions - will belong to those who apply the tax. Let me recall that the Tobin tax is due to be finalised at the Ecofin Council on 13 November and formally approved in December, with a view to being applied in 11 member states from next January. But what will the budgetary position be?
My conclusion is that Mr Lamassoure's comments demand general reflection.
(FR/transl.fl)