Broad brush agreement at EP - disagreement over details. Debate at the European Parliament on the outcome of the G20 summit in Washington focused more on how to kick-start the economy than on the financial crisis (see the extensive reporting on the debates at Strasbourg in our newsletters). This is to be expected. It is perfectly understandable that elected European politicians are more concerned about growth, purchasing power and unemployment than the functioning of the financial markets, although the G20 will not discuss these issues until next April. The president of the Council of the EU (Jouyet) and the president of the Commission bore this in mind when, in their answers to the MEPs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet talked about using EU funding (wriggle room in the application of competition rules and making the best use of EIB funding, etc) while José Manuel Barroso announced European Commission proposals for next week. But the economic relaunch plans tend to be national. The French minister called for them to be coordinated (national plans and EU measures should be closely coordinated in order to get the most economic leverage), and the president of the Commission said that member states' economies are now too closely linked for any single member state to be able to get out of the crisis through unilateral measures alone.
From cars to the Tobin Tax. On the basics, the political groups share the view that a united EU will have a role to play, explained Martin Schulz; the only possible solution is collective, said Graham Watson. But as soon as one gets down to brass tacks, there is a parting of the ways. The idea of providing aid for the car industry is controversial. Barroso says the car industry has to be aided and the EP held a debate on this issue, where one should remember the statements by Jouyet on behalf of the Presidency of the Council of the EU and clarifications by Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen (see yesterday's newsletter). Some Socialists are even calling for an “EU plan” to back the car industry. Pribetich says this should provide a “coordinated rapid and effective response from member states and the EU, and a structured industrial policy of solidarity,” because in his view, “the time has come for regulation and public action”. A return to state involvement in the economy of this ilk will clearly stick in the throats of some. In other domains, one MEP brought up the idea of a 1% Tobin Tax on transactions in the financial markets. Other MEPs are calling for a reformed EU Stability Pact, but several share the view of the chair of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, that the Stability Pact is flexible enough already to deal with the financial meltdown and national economic crises, as long, that is, that the crucial budget deficit rules are respected.
Tough talking at a fascinating European Council. The above overview is clearly far from exhaustive but it does give an idea of the sheer differences of views that will be expressed in the future, starting next week with the scam's unveiling of economic policy proposals for the December summit. The talks at the European Council in December on how to deal with the economic crisis will be tough but fascinating.
Mavericks. The overview would not be complete without some of the people I describe as mavericks, who challenge the very idea of growth and think the real problem is the demographic problem. They say the only way the fight against climate change and to protect the environment can be successful is if human beings stop breeding so intensively. People like former MEP Giorgio Ruffolo argue that unlimited economic expansion is unsustainable.
Other analysts say that stagnation or even recession are not a disaster but are actually quite healthy. Were things really so bad two or three years ago? Returning to the same level of GDP would not be a disaster, the way they see it, as long as there is progress in other areas like respect for nature, putting an end to wars and their devastation, ending crazy distortions by finally correcting them or at least making them illegal in the financial world (which only made an artificial contribution to growth most of which was in fact illusory or even negative in fact), or in the production of goods or in trade (both of which are poisoned or distorted in a myriad of different fashions).
Will putting an end to growth be a good thing for the planet and for humanity? It would be going to extremes if one took these views literally that I have barely begun to describe. They should be seen as a contribution to the debate, without ignoring the fact that everyone these days agrees on the idea that the financial markets have to undergo a root-and-branch overhaul. The system that emerges from the crisis will be better than the one that sucked the world into the financial abyss.
(F.R./transl.fl)