Synopsis. Everyone - regardless of his opinions and preferences - recognises that last week's statement from the French president on the relaunch of European construction represents a turning point (see EUROPE 10848). The different positions are becoming more numerous - be they in favour of François Hollande's initiative or to express reservations or even to reject it. This column has pointed out the aspect of Hollande's initiative that was at first sight ambiguous - are we faced with a case for intergovernmental Europe or a project strengthening Community Europe? I don't think that Mr Hollande intended to come down either way on this aspect, which exists and will be part of the debate. The message coming from Paris can be summarised in three tangible proposals: (i) creating political Europe in a timeframe of two years; (ii) creating a true economic government of the eurozone; (iii) creating the European Energy Community.
These objectives and the reactions that they have raised call for several considerations.
(1) Political Europe. On first sight, this can cause surprise because Europe is already political as are its institutions, too, starting with the European Parliament and Commission. Yet, currently each member state remains free in its choice and its behaviour - if national autonomy are respected. A true political Europe does not exist; transfers of sovereignty have been decided case by case. The objective would be to discuss everything within the European framework; exchanges of view could be of an institutional nature and the limits of national autonomy would be defined. The United Kingdom is opposed to any development in this direction and Germany considers that changes to the Treaty are first crucial (see following point).
(2) Economic government of the eurozone. According to the Hollande project, this body would meet every month. It would have the competence of deliberating on all aspects of the economy of euro countries, including on the budget and social areas, and its president would be assigned to just this task. There is even a trend in favour of the euro exchange rate being discussed as part of this. The eurozone would have a taxation capacity and borrowing powers, and therefore of issuing eurobonds. Germany's reservation is about this later aspect - the eurobonds would in practice be the common debts of the euro countries, which in Berlin's view first involves revising the Treaty that would make an abandonment of sovereignty possible.
(3) European Energy Community. Jacques Delors initiated this project believing that the current treaties do not allow a real common policy in this area. The creation of a new ad hoc Community would require a very heavy procedure and therefore much time. The French president did not provide details when he relaunched the idea but it is obvious that, in the meantime, EU action must be strengthened and harmonised on all aspects at a time when national positions diverge and member state policies vis-à-vis outside are sometimes contradictory. I believe that Mr Hollande was thinking rather of the definition of common positions to manage the internal market and especially relations with third countries, more than the birth of a new Community. This Wednesday's summit will discuss this.
The European Parliament and two-speeds. My clarification exercise shows that the autonomy of the eurozone is not only in the bag, but also becoming stronger. Let me repeat that two-speed Europe is not a hypothesis but a reality. And this is positive because it enables progress in European unity - even if certain member states (current or future) are on the sidelines. Without two-speed Europe, Europe would be blocked. How could the three objectives that I have pointed out, for example, be reached with the participation of Hungary today? It is not, moreover, by chance that the two speeds are clearly envisaged by the Treaty, which attributes considerable space to enhanced cooperation and to similar formulas.
In this context, the concerns of member states not belonging to the eurozone need to be understood. These states aspire to belong to the eurozone and want to participate in its management right from now, or at least to take part in it.
Of course, a political problem continues - that of the European Parliament, which of course affirms its overall competence, but can claim with difficulty that its MEPs from a state outside the eurozone can debate the eurozone and especially vote on its functioning.
The Parliament itself must find a solution if it wants to get out of an absurd and untenable situation. This file would be incomplete if it did not touch on certain significant positions from personalities from other member states. I will soon come back to this gap.
(FR/transl.fl)