Overall significance. Let no mistake be made when assessing the current period of European construction - despite the difficulties casting shadow over the present time, institutional reform and the political future of Europe are in full swing. The complexity of the files and the immediate concerns of professional circles - which are largely justified - arouse worry and pessimism. The tendency of each party to defend its own interests is normal - the world of finance employs every argument under the sun to safeguard it privileges (including those that are more dubious), the beneficiaries of benefits (who are sometimes abusive in this) balk at giving them up, and citizens protest against the sacrifices they are forced to make.
This behaviour is understandable but it must not distract us from the overall significance - which is longer term - of the transformations that are under way. In Mrs Merkel's view, five years will be required to see the light of day again - but this is what is under way and it is important to be aware of the developments that are going on.
Shared sovereignty. Member states need to give up some aspects of their sovereignty if we want the disciplines of the euro to be strengthened and to work properly. It is not about snatching current powers away from eurozone countries - in reality, as the leader of the ECB Mario Draghi pointed out, “several governments have still not understood that they lost their sovereignty when they allowed their national debt to spiral out of control”, adding that they will only be able to regain their sovereignty partially by accepting to share it at European level (interview in the Spiegel). The technical instruments put in place in the eurozone are gradually introducing the obligatory rules that they impose on the world of finance and they are giving the eurozone institutions monitoring instruments which were previously non-existent or inefficient - bank discipline is strengthened; the financial transaction tax will enter into force in a significant number of member states; and high frequency trading will be regulated and slowed. EUROPE regularly reports on the vast array of rules, thanks to which users' interests will be better regulated.
It is true that the world of finance is not giving up on its privileges and abuses - without being spectacularly opposed to the new disciplines, a sneaky obstruction tactic follows bringing out analyses that prove the inconveniences or the ineffectiveness of these new rules. Yet the political authorities are not giving up, and in a few cases banks themselves have begun to make the separation between the activity of financing the real economy and speculation.
The way is long, but the eurozone is moving forward in the right direction - positive effects will follow.
Towards institutional transformation. The “rules against abuse” battle that I mentioned earlier is essential, but it needs to be accompanied by institutional development which improves the efficiency of the way the EU works. Two objectives are considered to be priorities: (1) strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the institutions, starting with the European Commission; (2) consolidating relations between the member state national parliaments.
(i) The president of the Commission. It should be brought about that the president of the Commission is no longer seen by public opinion as a high level technocrat, but that he is considered as a political manager chosen by the citizens. With this aim in mind, it could be planned for the European elections in June 2014 for each “political family” to announce its candidate and the majority political group would appoint the new president of the Commission.
This is not a method that member state governments would accept readily because they would thus lose for themselves the power of appointing this president - an exercise that they like but that also has its downsides. It's well known, for example, that the current president of the Commission would have been Guy Verhofstadt if the United Kingdom had not waved its veto about in the confidential discussions.
The new procedure described above will doubtless meet with obstacles, but it has already formed the object of an informal exchange of views between the ministers of foreign affairs or European affairs, and a few candidate names to appoint, when the time comes, have already been mentioned by the political groups - Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk for the EPP? The current president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, for the Socialists? They are just rumours.
(ii) Including national parliaments more. As well as the majority of the European Parliament, the other Community institutions also seem to increasingly admit the need to strengthen links and cooperation with national parliaments. Transferring all the powers for European issues to the Community institutions would be a political mistake. The people essentially express their opinion in national elections and it is the result of these elections which determines the positions of the member states in the Community framework. What is more, several EU decisions need the approval of national parliaments in order to bring them to fruition. Let's just bring to mind the process of the European semester which precedes the adoption of national budgets by the different parliaments - national parliaments have to be involved if the EU wants to be funded by member states!
The idea of transferring all powers to Brussels even raises some bafflement. If a country's choice runs counter to the dominant political trend in Europe, this country risks being in the minority in Brussels too often. National choices must be respected. This is one of the reasons why Jacques Delors' formula exists too - the EU as a Federation of Nation States - because “the commitment in European construction is not incompatible with the attachment of citizens to their state, their nation and their culture”. And it is national parliaments that express this concept best.
A framework which duly takes national assemblies into consideration will facilitate the development of the EU towards majority decisions within it, which will be increasingly crucial in the future Europe.
Two-speed Europe - a reality. Alongside shared sovereignty and the updating of the institutions, the third unavoidable development is the accomplishment of a Two-speed Europe. To be honest, it already largely exists - yet its adversaries will not put down their weapons.
In my opinion it's an artificial battle - which is unjustified and has been lost before it's even begun, for the following two reasons: (1) it is clearly written into the treaties in force; (2) without it, the euro would not even exist and the whole debate on the future of European construction would no longer have any reason to exist. Accept the EU as much as the United Kingdom wants. The Treaties include an array of arrangements on enhanced cooperation and other similar formulas. But let's leave the legal aspect aside so as to see clearly that the two speeds condition all progress and deepen European construction.
The bigger the EU grows the more it becomes impossible to move forward all together. I realise that this reality is not formally admitted by the institutions. It is true that some steps of deeper integration could be decided at majority, but the states that do not agree could always not take these steps of deeper integration. And what should be done if a country accomplishes something without respecting the rules for it, sometimes with a staggering cost for the others? This is not a political hypotheseis - it's the case of Greece's accession to the eurozone. And future accomplishments which some member states don't want to take part in, or are not up to taking part in, will become ever more numerous.
In conclusion, the only way to avoid inaction is to use the two speeds - even if we are aware of the resulting difficulties, including the institutional complications, especially for the European Parliament. Progress in integration is not being imposed on those who don't want it - but it is not denied to those who want it just because one or other state doesn't agree.
Bases of the future. Looking at the future, the potential positive developments in European construction far outweigh the examples that I have illustrated today. The use of the EU's financial resources on the ground could be considerably improved - both in the choices of projects and in the effectiveness of controls, without denying what is generally acknowledged as true, that the wastage and irregularities depend essentially on the destination member states' use and not on Community management. My considerations today show quite clearly though that the current phase of European construction opens up advantageous perspectives. By criticising the errors and gaps, the EU is in the midst of laying future foundations. Today's difficulties are not caused by the recovery efforts that are currently under way but in particular by some of yesterday's mistakes, recklessness and behaviour. (FR/transl.fl)