Interpreting the term flexible. The differences in opinion on certain aspects of the European economic relaunch are not the reason for a rift between the political forces and thus between the member states. The discussions on applying the stability and growth pact simply confirm that the Centre-Right (EPP) positions and those of the Socialists do not totally coincide - even when the objectives are (in principle) broadly similar. One side states: without economic growth, Europe has no future; and the other side replies: it's the debts that are destroying the future. And this debate weighs on the future of the EU.
Herman Van Rompuy's formula - let's use the flexibility of the stability and growth pact without reforming the pact - is simple but not enough. The problem is actually in the interpretation of the term flexibility. The two positions need to be combined in concrete terms - but first there has to be belief in them.
Clarification needed. The priority need in interpreting and applying the stability and growth pact is to separate the criteria to be respected part from the time periods part. In principle, the criteria are untouchable. By contrast, the time periods can accommodate a certain amount of flexibility. What is more, the timetable has already demonstrated its flexibility as Spain managed to be given a further three years to get itself into order, and several other member states have taken advantage of the margins of flexibility to reach the objectives set. Of course, the countries concerned have to be credible and prove that the additional time is used for re-establishing growth - but this principle of flexibility on the time period, if justified, has thus become a given. The stability and growth pact includes other elements like this too.
Increased debt or investment? We need to come back to the essential. The two big rules that the pact imposes on the member states are clear: 3% budget deficit at the most, and 60% public debt in relation to gross national product (GNP). The derogations and arrangements do not change these figures.
Clearly the debate is currently focused, on the one hand, on the positions taken by the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, in his role as acting president of the Council of the EU, and on the other hand, on the position of several heads of government.
On the sidelines of his meeting with the European Commission in Rome last week, Renzi told the press in no uncertain terms that his government is not seeking derogations for the stability and growth pact, but the option of using the possibilities for flexibility that already exist. Those working with Renzi have a concrete example - the cost of reforms that favour growth (but do not have any immediate effect) must be considered as an investment, and not assimilated into debt. This is, of course, a difficult principle to apply because it's necessary to avoid excesses and abuse, and to provide proof…
Renzi then summed up his thinking - there is no growth without stability, but there can be no stability without growth. Over the weekend he then helped several efforts to play down - at least at the political level - the differences of opinion by stating that they had been exaggerated.
A Mediterranean-front is cast aside. Renzi has meanwhile forcefully rejected the existence of a sort of regrouping of EU Mediterranean countries, which are reportedly uniting to present uniform positions. Nothing of the sort exists, or will exist, stated Renzi.
The world of finance can have its say but… It's obvious that the banks can have their say but Renzi has underlined (in his sometimes rather brusque words) that “the reforms in Europe are decided upon by the heads of government - not by the bankers”.
Eurosceptic members of parliament are coming forward. The role of the European Parliament is increasingly crucial. What's new is the considerably strengthened presence of eurosceptic members of parliament and, in my opinion, it is positive that this strengthened presence should have its say in the institution which represents the people - that's what democracy is all about. The eurosceptic members of parliament last week had the opportunity to make their presence known. At the moment when Beethoven's Ode to Joy and Freedom (ninth symphony) started to play, they got up and … turned their backs! They are free not to like Beethoven, but to turn their backs in order to express their opposition to European unity is a political attitude that raises some not inconsiderable dismay.
This column will return to other aspects of the current situation - particularly on the budgetary and financial elements and their significance for the future of Europe. (FR)