Supranational Europe protects medium-sized and small member states. Events within the unified European market and the polemic surrounding real or supposed infringements affecting it do have some merit: small and medium-sized member states should have understood that, faced with the risk of abuses or irregularities being committed or practised by the big member states, their protection is found within Community rules and the supranational institutions, primarily the European Commission and European Court of Justice. In an intergovernmental Europe, small countries cannot punch above their weight. The Commission is guardian of the treaties, member states are obliged to observe the decisions made by the European Court of Justice and the increasing powers of the European Parliament further fosters transparency and democracy. The Lisbon Treaty will consolidate and enlarge these orientations, guaranteeing greater institutional efficiency and expanding the Community remit into new areas (energy!), whereas the intergovernmental method will allow each country to manage its anti-crisis measures as it sees fit, including industrial relocations and state aid.
Three essential positions. It is therefore fortunate, that without waiting for the informal summit on 1st March, the European institutions have reaffirmed the demand and desire to respect the rules of the single European market, as well as the rules applying to state aid. I would like to point out three essential positions on which our publication has already reported:
a) conclusions from the Economy/Finance Council. A decision made recently, means that the presidency of this Council has obtained the approval of all finance ministers of a text that compels member states to avoid any action that would restrict the four freedoms underpinning the basis of the common market (freedom of movement of goods, capital, services and people) or which would harm competition, in respect of rules on state aid. Network companies (energy, transport, telecommunications) and retail financial services are explicitly mentioned (EUROPE 9838);
b) Mr Barroso's declaration. The president of the European Commission made a robust appeal to member states to fight against, “economic nationalism and internal protectionism” (that could be exercised within the common market) because', “if a country takes unilateral measures, other member states will be able to too and we would lose Europe's great resource, the single market”. Aid to the car sector can be legitimate if it fully respects Community rules on the single market and aid. The Commission will carefully examine the details of each project (see EUROPE 9838 mentioned above);
c) Mr Fillon's declaration. The French prime minister affirmed that the French plan to help the French car sector had nothing to do with protectionism. There is no question of banning company relocations within the EU but rather, making public funding to car manufacturers conditional on “not closing down assembly on national territory”. The loans announced are crucial if Renault and Peugeot/Citroën are to avoid closing down the production sites announced or already set up in several member states: United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia. The commissioner for competition, Neelie Kroes has asked Paris for an explanation, which is currently being examined.
Clarity and visibility. I apologise for going over news that our readers have already had, in an attempt to pull the different sources together. The basic principle clearly affirmed is that rules of the single market will be respected. On 1st March, heads of government will further highlight and clarify this affirmation to the public. We have often observed that the summit is firmer and more explicit than ministers of finance in interpreting Community rules and their respective national requirements. It is possible, indeed even probable, that in the meantime, one or other of the national projects will have been revised or clarified, if doubts have appeared. Both the Commission and governments will do their duty. Ultimately, the unkind exchange of words between Mr Sarkozy and Mr Topolánek (unusual at this level) will not have been a total waste of time, if the impossibility and absurdity of protectionism within the single market have been clearly revealed, even, it is hoped, to the public too.
The situation is different for relations involving third countries, which are not tied by rule of the single market or affected by the remit of the supranational institutions. In this case, reciprocity and monitoring are required. But this is another story.
(F.R./transl.rh)