Ministers disconcerted. What weight should we give last week's differences between the European Commission and some Finance Ministers over strengthening the Eurogroup and the external representation of the single currency? The "Solbes plan", launched a few days before, had disconcerted certain ministers, who were not expecting a Commission initiative in this field without prior dialogue. The reactions of French Minister Fabius and the President of the Eurogroup, Mr. Reynders, were quite strong. And, most logical, the British did not conceal that they did not appreciate, but then not at all, a project aimed at consolidating the structures of a body of which they are not part.
It's true that differences had more to do with form - the procedure followed - and on quarrels of competencies and precedence between Ministers and the Commission, than as to substance: it seems that no minister disputed the appropriateness of strengthening economic coordination between the countries of the euro zone, nor the need to gradually provide the single currency with a dual voice: the ECB for monetary aspects and a political authority or economic aspects. Yes, but which political authority? The President of the Eurogroup? Or the Commission? Or both?
The President spoke out clearly. The current President of the Eurogroup, Mr. Reynders took on board the stance of the previous President, Laurent Fabius, without hesitation. He declared to Agence France Press (AFP): "We insisted that any initiative in this field on the part of the Commission had first to be debated within the Eurogroup. I would not like the somewhat speedy communications of the Commission to give the impression of a vague institutional framework. We want to organise an increasingly clear structure of the functioning of the euro zone, with strong monetary responsibility for the ECB and a strong political responsibility for the Eurogroup. Further confusion must be avoided, such as suggesting that we are three or four. The Commission's role is to fuel the work of the Eurogroup through indicators and the coordination of economic forecasts, but I would really like that to occur in the respect of the rationale of a political authority, which is that of the Eurogroup". Now that's clear. For his part, Fabius held a separate informal press conference, to criticise the Commission's initiative. Romano Prodi wanted to play things down: "These reactions, I had expected them. When one makes proposals aimed at turning things around, one has to expect it. For changes, one needs time and effort".
The United Kingdom, excluded and ill at ease. But it is not simply a question of power and competencies. Two other aspects affect the substance of the problems. The first is essentially political: not to sidelines the British. Last July, Mr. Fabius had expressed spectacular ambitions for the action and the visibility of the Eurogroup of which he had just become chairman. As time went by, his ambitions shrank. It's that, meanwhile, closer ties between France and the United Kingdom were forged, and there was no question of hurting the feelings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer too much. The same sensitivity seems to be moderating the dynamism of Mr. Reynders, who - still while commenting on the Solbes plan - declared: "The Commission is quick to sideline somewhat countries that do not form part of the euro zone". For their part, the British recalled the Luxembourg arrangements providing for all economic decisions having to be taken within the EcoFin Council, thus among Fifteen; nothing can be decided without them. Regarding this, it should once more be pointed out that nobody has excluded Britain from the euro zone: on the contrary, it's voluntary self-exclusion.
Understatement on a revolution. The second substantive aspect concerns one element of the Commission's proposals: ex-ante coordination of economic policies. Mr. Solbes presentation was rather an understatement: improve the coordination of economic policies, strengthen the effectiveness of the instruments, create a working party, meet more frequently, all this "without changing the current legal framework in any way"… In other words the usual language of bureaucratic projects. In fact, at least one aspect is revolutionary: all the Member States of the euro zone should inform the other Member States and the Commission beforehand of their economic decisions "that could have an effect on the economy of the zone", and communicate to the Commission their "stability programmes" before adopting them. Appeasing explanation: "that would allow for account to be taken of possible observations and suggestions before definitively taking decisions and acting out the programmes in question". But that's a revolution! This plan directly touches upon the problem of the limits and nature of European surveillance of national economic policies, already raised by the Irish affair, and deserves an ad hoc comment. (F.R.).