The case of Romano Prodi's words on the Stability Pact has taken a positive turn. The Commission's president explained the significance of some of his claims that had shocked, and welcomed, as did a large number of MEPs, the fact of having initiated the essential debate on economic governance. But misunderstandings persist, as well as reservations and stances that do not take account of the clarifications provided. I'd stress that:
1. A misunderstood adjective. Mr. Prodi explained that the adjective "stupid" did not refer to the stability Pact itself but a stubborn and literal application of the Pact that does not take account of real economic developments. By obviously considering that they did not have sufficient intellectual elasticity to revise them depending on the ongoing debate, some MEPs, who had prepared their speeches beforehand, continued to accuse him of not having respect one of the Commission's fundamental obligations, i.e., defending Community law and a rigorous surveillance of its implementation. This ambiguity should not persist, as, in his first statements, Mr. Prodi said that the Pact was one of the indispensable bases of EMU, that it had to be respected and that the Commission would rigorously implement the procedures provided for on any State, large of small, that exceeded the 3% ceiling for annual budgetary deficits. The term "stupid" may have been excessive, but had the same meaning as the word "crude" used by Pascal Lamy and "not very intelligent" previously used by Mario Monti (see this section of 19 October).
2. The "Economic Co-ordination Pact" resurfaces. Whatever, the foremost significance of Prodi's interview did not concern the Stability Pact but the lack of effective and targeted co-ordination of economic policies, with an authority with the necessary powers to have it respected. The central phrase of his interview is not, in my opinion, the one containing the adjective "stupid" but the following: "the idea of having different economic policies is total folly" (even though I would have preferred the adjective "divergent" to "different"), with what follows: "co-ordination of economic policies is, with the Stability Pact, the very least". Romano Prodi thus joins the stance of his predecessor, Jacques Delors, who from the outset, alongside the Stability Pact, called for an Economic Co-ordination Pact, just as binding and an authority capable of having it respected.
3. A Romano Prodi reserve. As far as I see it, Prodi was reluctant on one point. His phrase the most applauded by MEPs Monday evening was the following: "the time has come to learn to say in public the same things we say in private". But he did not fully apply this. His intention, in speaking as he did, was doubtless to spur-on the Convention's work whose "economic governance" working group has, according to Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, "a very low level of ambition". This unacknowledged intention is indispensable (see this section of 16 October: "the dossier that's stuck", and page 8 of this bulletin).
4. The appropriate tribune (on one condition). It is positive that the debate should have begun within the European Parliament, as the aforementioned questions must be discussed in full light between citizens' representatives, given their direct effect on economic growth and on the living standard of the population. The content of Monday evening's lively and contradictory debate proved that the EP represents the most appropriate tribune (see EUROPE of 21/22 October, p. 9 and 23 October, pp. 12 and 13). It is less fortunate that a certain number of parliamentarians should have interpreted this debate not as an opportunity to prove (or dispute, depending on opinions) the need to create effective European instruments for economic o-ordination, but to defend their own political concepts of the economy. But perhaps I'm mistaken, as parliamentarians have the right, the duty even, to set out their opinions in all circumstances... on condition that the members of the Convention for their part understand that a constitutional treaty cannot espouse a defined political doctrine, if we want the indispensable consensus to be there. Romano Prodi, moreover, stipulated, in answering MEPs: "I'm not speaking for the Commission, I'm not claiming that the authority responsible for ensuring the respect of economic co-ordination must be the Commission, but that this authority needs creating". He firmly reaffirmed that the responsibility of budgetary policies remains and will remain in the hands of Member States, but that at the same times there needed to be "a guide that can ensure the system's coherence and direction", and that the "natural candidate for this role is the Commission, on the basis of a Council mandate, under Parliament's control". His message was addressed to the Convention as much as to Parliament and the Council. (F.R.)