The situation in reality. The rumours that Nicolas Sarkozy is hoping to extend his chairmanship of the Eurogroup at the highest level have raised a number of pointless debates. Impassioned personal reactions are never the best, whether they come from Prague or Berlin. It is more useful and reasonable to start by taking an objective look at the situation, the essential points of which are as follows:
a) the Eurogroup (a name which, incidentally, even the French speakers have started to borrow, even though this abbreviation in French refers to any random European group and not necessarily one related to the currency) is not a Community institution, but an informal body made up of the members of the eurozone. Its presidency is not linked to the rotation of the Presidency of the Council of the EU, and the members of this zone have themselves decided to appoint a permanent president at finance minister level, as we know;
b) previously, it has twice happened that the six-monthly Presidency of the Council has been carried out by countries which are not part of the eurozone. When this was the case, it was simply decided that the previous Presidency would keep on the presidency of the Eurogroup for an extra six months;
c) the Eurogroup had never met at head of government level until Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Council of the EU, took such an initiative, in order to get all his counterparts together to discuss a suitable response to the financial crisis. This was not an intergovernmental meeting, because the Community institutions (European Commission, European Central Bank) were invited;
d) other similar meetings are, of course, possible in the future. However, it appears impossible for a head of state or government not part of the eurozone to be able to convene a body of which he or she is not a member and over which he or she has no competency. Nor would such a head of state or government be taking part in the meeting convened! However, the two forthcoming Presidencies of the Council of the EU will be held by two countries (the Czech Republic and Sweden) which are not part of the eurozone. It is normal and desirable for the Eurogroup itself to decide on its own meetings.
So, where are the problems? It appears, at first sight, that they are twofold:
1. The oversensitivity of the Czech Presidency. Czech Minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra has had his say (see our bulletin 9768). His arguments carry no weight, in my view. First of all, he said that nobody can take the Presidency away from his country. This is quite obviously true and nobody is even considering this; we are speaking about an informal body of which his country is not a member, and about meetings which he will not be attending. Secondly, the minister observed that this kind of initiative would be more likely to divide the EU than to unite it. But it is clear that what is dividing the Union is the fact that certain countries are not members of the single currency; those who are must clearly manage it. The United Kingdom and Denmark have called for and obtained derogations; good for them, if that is what they want. Sweden could (and, on paper, should) join; a bit of legal trickery allows it not to. The newer member states are joining as and when they fulfil the conditions laid down, and they aspire to do so with all their might. As soon as they are ready, they are welcomed with open arms. The period when the EU asked its member states to agree to rules drafted and refined jointly has been and gone. Now, let each country and each population freely make their own choices and accept the consequences of doing so.
2. Misgivings attributed to Germany. Angela Merkel's spokesperson observed that Mr Juncker is the natural president of any form of the Eurogroup. This comment can be explained by German misgivings not about meetings of the Eurogroup at heads of state and government level (Ms Merkel did indeed take part, and highly effectively, in the first of its kind), but about certain ideas of Mr Sarkozy in favour of a kind of European economic government, which Germany would be highly wary of. We have already seen a few differences of opinion between the French and the Germans over the financial crisis, and there will be more to come. The president of the Eurogroup duly takes account of these, whether they emerge at finance minister level or at head of government level. Differences over economic governance will also be levelled off over time, because of the explanations and clarifications brought to them. Is it even possible to imagine that major economic and monetary decisions could be taken against the will of the Germans?
The link between the way the presidency is allocated and the basis for these problems seems to me to be artificial. But it is true that Mr Juncker is both a finance minister and head of government and that he leads the Eurogroup to general satisfaction. And in any case, Mr Sarkozy himself said that Mr Juncker could be the president of the Eurogroup at both levels. The squabble over the people is hardly the point. I will return to this tomorrow.
(F.R./trans.fl)