Great significance of a controversy. The quarrel on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank is snowballing. This column has hailed the fact that this appointment is debated in the EU institutions - because it is thus acknowledged that this is a Community affair and not an intergovernmental one. The legal aspect thus being clarified, it remains to be understood why the disagreement on the person to appoint is so bitter, not only between the European Parliament and the European Council, but also within the Council itself. We are all aware of the situation - the Council had nominated a man whose merit is not contested (Yves Mersch, Governor of the Central Bank of Luxembourg); the Parliament was opposed to the fact that by this nomination no woman would figure on the ECB Executive Board (Mrs Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell being the last woman to have been part of it); Mr Van Rompuy had nonetheless started the procedure of appointing the male candidate, given that on this issue the Parliament has the right to express its opinion but does not have the power of decision; the procedure has not come to an end because Spain has not accepted the proposed candidate, and, at the current time, unanimity of the member states is required.
The reasons for this double conflict remain to be understood: (1) between the Council and the Parliament; (2) within the Council.
For the Parliament, it is a question of principle - a woman should be included on the ECB Executive Board. For the Spanish government, the four big countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) should figure on the Executive Board. Besides, if a Spaniard is not nominated, the weight of the countries in budgetary difficulty would be reduced within the ECB. It is clear, then, that the male or female issue does not feature in Madrid's position, which is dictated by their resolve to continue being on the Executive Board alongside the three other big eurozone countries - a presence which could be justified by the fact that the four countries mentioned above represent 80% of the eurozone's GDP. These elements are the result of independent studies - as far as I know, the Spanish authorities have not officially made the reasons for their attitude known.
It now remains for me to mention (see yesterday's column) that the Socialist MEP, Robert Goebbels, is against the Parliament's attitude which, in his opinion, does not have a right of veto on appointments within the ECB - which in his view would represent a denial of the democratic working of the EU.
Is the Spanish attitude admissible, or completely incompatible with the principle of equality between the member states? On the ECB Executive Board, is the balance between the strict countries and the countries needing financing justified? Could the Parliament believe that the male-female balance is not the only criterion to consider in this case? Each has its own answers.
The crisis seen by Helmut Schmidt. The opinion of the former German chancellor - who played a leading role in European construction and will be 94 next birthday - is always well worth listening to. In an interview published at the beginning of the month, he said in particular: "In 1992, the Masstricht Treaty brought together 12 member states - and even back then it was scarcely manageable. Afterwards, we invited everyone to join us, on conditions that several countries were not up to respecting. The result of this, in particular, is a European Commission of 27 members that are all given equal rights" - a system which to his mind is unmanageable. He added: "Each member state was invited to participate in a single currency on conditions that several did not fulfil". The result is that "the world of finance has gained in power without being under the control of democratic authorities".
Helmut Schmidt doubtless recognises that any European country has the option of asking to join the eurozone, while at the same time advocating more severity so that its request might be accepted. After this, the alternative is clear - either wait for unanimity for any progress on enlargement, or accomplish progress between the member states that want to participate in the eurozone and that fulfil the conditions for this (as is also provided for under various forms by the treaties in force). This clearly establishes a two-speed Europe, and Mr Schmidt is of course aware of this. We might therefore be permitted to consider that the former German chancellor accepts the "two speeds", accompanied, in his view, by a deep reform of the working of the EU - founded not on empty formulae like political Union, nor on beautiful speeches which lead to nothing, but on a real institutional reform.
(FR/transl.fl)