If I had to single out the most positive European development I see at the moment, I would choose the progress of the notion of cohesion in the European Union, of the Union as a structured and coherent whole with its own personality. Are these just banalities? Not really, when one hears the next British Prime Minister Gordon Brown say that between the national State and the world, there is nothing, intermediate organisations being for him of no substance. Leaving aside the solemn declarations calling for European unity, I refer to concrete expressions proving the existence of the notion of a European body and the ambition to drive it forward and bring it to fruition. Here are two examples.
A European stock market? The first example is of European stock exchanges coming closer together. The proposed merger between Euronext (which brings together the Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Lisbon stock exchanges) and the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) was presented as an ordinary merger of private companies in an open world financial system. That is perhaps what the financial world thinks, but the political world decided it had something to say on the matter. The head of Euronext said initially that “linking Euronext with the New York Stock Exchange is a more European choice than joining with the Frankfort stock exchange”; but a substantial section of the European political world proved not to share this opinion. No one formally challenged the freedom of heads of stock exchanges to act as they see fit, but certain “preferences” were clearly indicated. The president of the European Central Bank (ECB) Jean-Claude Trichet, questioned at his last press conference, said that the ECB Board of Governors had no power in this area, but he added that, in his opinion, “the European option would be preferable”. At the end of the last Franco-German Summit, Chancellor Angela Merkel (while stating she had no power to influence in this area) and President Jacques Chirac followed the same line as Mr Trichet. Italian economy minister Tommaso Padoa Schioppa was more forthcoming: he felt the best outcome would be a network bringing Euronext, the Frankfort Deutsche Börse and the Milan Borsa Italiana together “under one roof”. It would not be a merger, rather a network system which would give the euro zone a single structure in the securities market, even though each market would remain independent. By referring to the euro zone, he automatically discounted the London Stock Exchange (which is sufficiently controlled by the US stock exchange, the Nasdaq).
Not being an expert, I will not say anything about the colossal interests and power struggles implicit in these grand manoeuvrings. It has been said that Euronext preferred the NYSE because this latter promised it greater autonomy (and company responsibilities) than the Deutsche Börse. Paris' fears of being absorbed by Frankfort are well known. Arrangements for a European alliance will have to be managed carefully. The political reaction, however, was clear: if, for efficiency reasons, consolidation is necessary, movement should be towards a European financial market. Otherwise, what was the point of setting up the euro? The danger of not doing so would be to give the Americans (with a bridgehead in London) the dominant voice in the development and regulation of the continental financial market.
Conditions of access to the market without borders. The second example is illustrated by the recent comments of Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner on the conditions which would allow the great European market without borders to be extended to the countries of the “neighbourhood policy” (see bulletin 9206): “The internal market is the foundation of the EU and we will fiercely defend its integrity”. It must “include common technical standards, intellectual property rights, competition rules, consumer protection. Every year we add something to the legislative body which governs it”. The external relations commissioner spoke of a few cases: “I have learned that Ukraine is adopting EU standards for its oil products in order to be able to export them to EU markets, that Tunisia has adopted EU hygiene standards for foodstuffs to be able to export shellfish and oysters to the EU”. This is the very opposite of the free trade with no rules or discipline which some would wish for and which would pay no attention to consumers' rights, animal welfare, respect for industrial property. Products which pollute the environment, come from forced labour or child labour, which put the health on consumers in danger and so on will not have access to the European market. (F.R.)