Clarifications in Paris. Whilst waiting for the European Council of next week to tell us whether the EU is committing to its relaunch, it is a positive signal that we are now seriously looking into the essential economic orientations for the future: governance of the eurozone, rebalancing the economic and monetary union (EMU), keeping agriculture alive, significance of the Community preference in the framework of globalisation, setting the “borders of Europe”, moralisation of financial capitalism (see this column in our bulletin 9437). Starting positions of the member states differ, on the autonomy of the eurozone, on the role of agriculture or the geographical boundaries of the Union. France has been accused of wanting to create a “Fortress Europe”, of not respecting the constraints of the Stability Pact, of preparing a two-speed Europe. A few responses to these criticisms have come in from Paris.
The prime minister, François Fillon, has stated (our translation): “we will respect the constraints which we have agreed to with our partners, under the Stability Pact”. In particular, the state's indebtedness will be brought below 60% of GNI between now and 2012 (but it has been pointed out within the Eurogroup that the deadline had been scheduled for 2010). As for the borders of the EU, France believes that this must be discussed together before the end of the year, under the Portuguese Presidency, and it has not anticipated its own position (except with regard to Turkey).
For his part, the secretary of state for European affairs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has clarified two controversial aspects: a) governance of the eurozone. The objective is that this zone will “walk on its own two legs”, the monetary leg and the economic leg. To this effect, “we must bring into the economic and monetary union a dialogue between the monetary authorities and the political authorities. We must be able to discuss normally, with the president of the European Central Bank, issues surrounding the adaptation of the interest rates and the policy of change”, b) Community preference. “We must not confuse a desire to defend the economic and commercial interests of Europe (without complexes, as our partners do) with protectionism”. Paris would like the EU to define “a clearer vision of the European interests in a globalised space”, on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. Mr Jouyet went on to highlight the need to “maintain a strong industrial base in Europe” (shared, in his view, by Germany).
Antidote to economic nationalism? According to certain professional circles in France, businesses need (I quote from a text by Jean Gandois, of the Suez Group) a territorial and political space representing their base camp. This base camp must be Europe. If Europe does not play this part, business will fall back on its national territory, and it is in its own country where it will seek its identity. In the debate held last week by Confrontations Europe, Mario Monti noted with regret the tendency of businesses (and the authorities) to fall back on the national, welcoming the fact that the EU has instruments to tackle this and that the European Commission and the Court of Justice are working against any side slipping. I would like to ask Mr Monti the following question: does not the “Community preference” represent the best antidote to the rebirth of “economic nationalism”, which has already manifested itself on several occasions? Is it not indispensable, at least until the day when we have international rules agreed to and observed?
An overall positive message. Generally speaking, on that day Mario Monti delivered a positive message. In his opinion, Europe's rebirth is in train, economically, institutionally and psychologically. In two years, Europe has changed, and it appears to him to have shaken off its complexes, even as regards the United States. The priority for the EU is to confirm and consolidate these impressions, by taking on the planned “fundamental treaty”. After this, the new Single Act recommended by Philippe Herzog, or similar initiative, may bring appropriate answers to other questions, within a climate which is once again serene. For example, the Europeans will learn that a common energy policy is just as useful and vital as the single currency. However, Mr Monti did not hide an element of concern with regard to the compatibility between the effectiveness of the provisions to be taken to respect the requirements of competitiveness on the one hand and, on the other, a totally open “citizens' debate” involving the possibility for everyone to put across the particular interests of any given category, at the detriment, sometimes, of the general interest. This confusion did not, however, appear to be shared by the majority of those who took the floor; it is the thesis of “participative democracy” which appears to prevail at this moment in time.
(F.R.)