In his speech on the state of the European Union last week, President Juncker did the institution he serves a massive favour (see EUROPE 11861). He could not have done more to illustrate the absolutely indispensable nature of the Commission as guarantor of the treaties and of the common interests of a group of countries that have agreed to live under a community regime that can be boiled down to the acquis. The proof of this is that his speech had as many detractors as it did fans, and they came from all sides. Essentially, his words made flesh the monopoly of initiative granted to an independent institution, over and above the specific interests of the member states, because it is there to serve the common interests of all, states and citizens.
And this, of course, was only ever going to get a mixed response. Was it ever likely that Ireland (and a lot of other countries, hiding behind its skirts) would jump for joy at the idea – however much sense it makes – that decisions on a common corporate tax base, or the possible financial transactions tax, could one day be adopted by qualified majority? Thanks to the unanimity rule, European common interests in this field continue to be at the mercy of national interests, and Jean-Claude Juncker was quite right in calling for a departure from the rulebook.
And he was absolutely, unquestionably right to stress that whether they are workers or consumers, European citizens must be treated in exactly the same way in the east, the west and the centre of the EU, even if certain private interests would prefer it if harmonisation did not get in the way of their avarice for profit. It needed an independent voice to point this out to the member states: this voice could only come from the Commission, an institution that is indispensable when it pledges itself genuinely and totally to the service of the common interests of European citizens – which, unfortunately, does not always seem to be the case, as its stance over the glyphosate dossier worryingly suggests...
Less easy to understand were President Juncker’s arguments regarding the single currency. Obviously, he was right, because the treaties do stipulate that all member states, with the exception of Denmark and the United Kingdom, have the vocation – and the obligation – to join the eurozone. As the head of the European institution that serves as guardian of the treaties, it was, therefore, his duty to point this out. However, does anybody really believe that any other countries will be putting themselves out in the next few months to meet the criteria that will open the door of the eurozone to them? I don’t think anybody does. This was just lip service, then, and it was clear that Jean-Claude Juncker’s only real concern was to mend an East-West divide. Once again, that was his job, his duty. But this veteran of European integration knows better than anyone that while the Commission proposes, it is the states that dispose.
And towards them, Jean-Claude Juncker sought to tread carefully, to uphold the spirit of the treaties and the cohesion of the European family. For instance, while he firmly rejected “the idea of a specific eurozone parliament” and the prospect of giving the eurozone its own budget, he threw a sop to Angela Merkel’s Germany, by borrowing the idea that the European Stability Mechanism, the bailout fund of the eurozone, could over time be transformed into a European Monetary Fund. In exchange, he wants the European economy and finance minister that Paris is demanding to be the remit of an individual who would also be vice-president of the Commission with responsibility for the economy and finance, as well as the president of the Eurogroup. 'In exchange', because in this case, it would most certainly come down to serious horse-trading.
At the informal meeting of finance ministers that has just taken place in Tallinn (see EUROPE 11863), the current president of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who is on borrowed time, was the first to let his mask slip: “we should start the other way around. Instead of having a debate mainly on the institutional side, let’s talk about what the eurozone lacks in terms of competitiveness, resilience and solidarity. I think we should start with the problems and end with the institutional debate”.
This comment is a crystal-clear indication that the states are already massing and taking steps to ensure that they alone hold all the power in the eurozone. Jean-Claude Juncker’s proposal would see economic policy managed, in the future, within the institution that has a duty to the common interest and that is answerable to the European Parliament for its actions and decisions. When you consider that there are some, in Berlin in particular, who would like the Commission to be stripped of its responsibility to ensure compliance with the convergence criteria, on the grounds that this responsibility should instead be given to an inter-governmental European Monetary Fund, you can see just how much the institutional and political fight that is quietly shaping up will be of decisive importance for the short-term evolution of the European project. It will be even more so for the fate of the European citizens. Consequently, they should have a say in the matter. (To be continued)
(Original version in French by Michel Theys)