Two contradictory arguments. Nothing surprising. It's normal that the results of last week's summit were the subject of two opposite interpretations - a success, in the view of the key players; and a pack of technical arrangements on the way the banking world works, in the view of those who expect more when the heads of government and presidents of the European institutions come together after days and nights of preparatory discussions between the ministers of finance.
Supporters of these two arguments think they have valid reasons. Let me try to understand them.
Indignant federalists. As far as I know, the most radical position is that of the French Union of Federalists (UEF-France). It criticises a “fatal step backwards from the European Council”, which postponed “until after 2014 the debate on Europe's political union” - a debate that on the other hand ought to precede the May/June 2014 elections so as to strengthen Europe's structures and decision-making modalities. The UEF states (our translation throughout): “Such a postponement to an undetermined date means that, in the absence of any prospect of EU political recovery, the trust of the citizens and economic operators will inexorably continue its erosion (…) and the 2014 elections - combined with the renewing of the Commission - will take place in an atmosphere of disenchantment and indifference.” Even if the European Council starts a partial process of reform in 2016 or 2017, it would be late and “particularly disconnected from all public debate and democratic process at the European level”. The UEF's position goes on: “One hope remains - that the European Parliament, criticising the deficiency of the heads of state and government, might decide to start the reform procedure. The new arrangements in the Lisbon Treaty give it the right to do this.”
Jean-Guy Giraud, the leader of UEF-France, has given details of the route by which the European Parliament could start the appropriate procedures next year. The agreement of 14 member states would be enough to open a Convention. This column will return to this tomorrow.
Sylvie Goulard's anticipated disappointment. Before the summit began, the MEP had already rejected the insufficient result that had not yet been formally decided. She is certainly not afraid of the technical aspects because she is in the front row in the discussions on the complex texts that govern EMU. Yet she thinks that the heads of state and government are on the wrong road: “The method is mistaken. Why give the priority to technical questions, like bank supervision, when for the first time the European Council is leaning towards democratic legitimacy? Why so much jargon and so little ambition? (…) Mr Van Rompuy is taking 27 heads of state or government for ministers of finance or technicians. In a 15 page text (NB: Ms Goulard is referring to the preparatory document of the president of the European Council) we have to wait until page 13 before we finally get to questions of democracy - and still the content is disappointing. Even new ideas, like a budget for the eurozone, end up losing all depth. The euro calls for common policies on economic and social matters. It obliges the eurozone to finally be considered as a whole. Without democracy at the level of this whole, the intrusion of European partners in national policies, where disagreement is already rife, will become unbearable (…) And here's a question - who controls the European Council, that collective monarch which makes decisions behind closed doors and which can never be overthrown? The legitimisation of its members at national elections, where there is hardly any talk of Europe, is no longer enough.”
Michel Barnier's satisfaction. Let's now turn to those who think the summit was a success. European Commissioner Michel Barnier described what was accomplished last week as “a big step” because it means “monitoring together, supervising together; taking measures on the European level for thousands of banks - many of which are cross-border and can provoke negative consequences on the other side of the border (…) The ECB will be totally informed about the whole banking system, there will be a homogeneity of practices, a supervision manual which will be the same for 6,000 banks (…) It is in this way that piece by piece, brick by brick, banking union will be built - starting from this fundamental step of supervision, a tool of stability and confidence (…) The stability of the eurozone is important for the whole EU, for the progress and stability of the whole single market.” This is why Michel Barnier considers that the European Council has been a success.
Is the EESC an example? Those who affirm the importance of the results of last week's summit also base their arguments on the history of European unity. This history proves how far the decisions - that are seemingly technical - are in reality of top-ranking political significance. The first European community - the EESC - only covered coal and steel. Born in the indifference of the 1950s, it was seen by public opinion as an “obscure agreement between smiths” when in fact it “made war between France and Germany materially impossible and started an irreversible European integration”. I have just quoted a lead article in Le Monde which adds: “It's the same with banking union”.
One might answer that the objective is no longer making an intra-European war impossible, which is nevertheless acquired - the priority objective today is rather to make European unity progress and in first place the single currency. And it is at this point of reasoning that the divergences are found.
Some consider that seemingly technical progress is essential for making the construction of Europe advance by creating the necessary conditions, and the example already quoted of the first European community, the EESC, is instructive. Mr Monnet, Mr Adenauer, Mr Schuman, Mr De Gasperi and then Mr Spaak, and others too, did not know much about the functioning of coal and steel markets, but they understood how important it was to take their management away from national authorities, by creating a supranational High Authority. And they were right. Currently, no one considers that by pooling banking supervision the political problems of the future Europe can be resolved. Political accomplishments are needed, and what is more, much has been done in these areas too. Yet the decisions that are not yet ready need to be ripe. The divergences that continue are not a valid reason for not advancing wherever it's possible - all the more so if the area where progress is made has great importance, as is the case for the control of the financial world - in which the loopholes have been - and in part still are - the principle cause of the dysfunction and abuse.
Is six months a crucial time period? The thoughts set out above do not mean, of course, that endeavours to make the more clearly political sections advance should be put aside. Yet we are well aware of how many aspects involve innovations and are still the subject of divergence between member states. Suggestions from one or other member state are numerous and often important. This column will return to this tomorrow. In these conditions, the fact of having entrusted to the president of the European Council the task of bringing an overall programme forward in six months' time has been seen as inevitable, given the breadth of subjects to take into consideration - coordination of national economic policies, the social dimension of EMU, the solidarity mechanism, and the list goes on (see our report of the summit in the previous edition of EUROPE). The heads of state and government considered that it was simply impossible to discuss everything last week.
Lack of parallelism. We thus now come to the key point of the divergence. Has the European Council postponed the crucial elements until some vague time in the future? Or has it become engaged in the only route that's practicable? Let's not forget the breadth of the divergences that persist and that must be discussed and ironed out, starting from the possible modification of the current Treaty - a modification which is indispensable in the view of some member states, and inopportune in the view of others.
And let's not forget that the divergences are not about what the summit decided - rules of behaviour and monitoring of banking activities - but about the lack of parallelism between this decision and the three aspects of EMU that are still open (the budgetary section, the socio-economic section and the political section). Without ignoring the fact that the rules targeting the world of finance represent part of the whole that must follow - if the debts of a country are pooled, the monitoring of this country's behaviour must also be pooled, and so respect of the rules by the country asking for common support must be checked.
It could thus be concluded that the debates and divergences on the results of last week's Council do not focus on the principles, but on the lack of parallelism - the technical progress has been accomplished but progress in the political development of this ever evolving Europe has been dismissed until next year. Yet those who deplore this separation have the chance to assert their position, and some of them have already pointed out the weapons that exist and their intention to make use of them - as will be described in this column tomorrow.
(FR/transl.fl)