Let's go beyond vague declarations. How can we prevent Sunday's informal European summit restricting itself to a few declarations on the need to do something about the double-edged economic and financial crisis and Europe's determination to take appropriate measures? Organising this summit was not a simple process. A joint request for it was made by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy with the aim of holding discussions at the highest level, before the end of February, on the EU's intentions and orientations. Mirek Topolánek, the president of the European Council, was initially reluctant but then took up the initiative, together with the president of the Commission, who subsequently added a third source of support for the summit. The informal meeting will take place in March not February; the main theme will be a fully-functioning common market; a similar summit on the social impact of the crisis and its effect on jobs will take place afterwards, in Prague.
What counts has already been said. In the meantime, the determination to respect the rules of the single European market has been robustly strengthened (EUROPE 9841). After which, Angela Merkel brought together those representing Europe at the next G20, thereby largely putting into practice the initiative she and Mr Sarkozy had envisaged. The heads of government of the most financially powerful EU countries (Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands) were present, as well as the presidents of the European Council (Mr Topolanek), the European Commission (Mr Barroso), Eurogroup (Mr Juncker) and the European Central Bank (Mr Trichet). Some commentators said that the result was insufficient - there is room for disagreement. Thanks to this meeting, it has now been agreed that on 2 April, the EU will meet the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa etc and present a very advanced position that involves regulation of all aspects of the financial world (including hedge funds and tax havens) backed up by effective surveillance (EUROPE 9846). Modalities still need to be worked out but it is very clear on a level of principles.
The European summit will therefore just have to confirm what has in principle already been agreed on the two main themes: a) commitment to fully respecting the rules of the single market under the control of the Community institutions; b) support for effective and comprehensive reform of global finance.
Unblocking €5bn. In what way will the summit be able to add something operational to the two confirmations mentioned above? Firstly, it will put the EU's budgetary contribution into practice at a level of national economic recovery plans and by providing accurate indications to the Council for releasing the €5bn for projects of common interest. Germany was right to demand that as the main contributor, there should be information about how these projects are chosen (EUROPE 9842) and it is also normal that on the basis of the list provided by the Commission, each member state strives to obtain a maximum from the projects that directly affect it. The Economy/Finance Council and the Energy and General Affairs Councils debated this and our publication provided a broad report on the subject (9828, 9834, 9844, 9845 and 9846). The selection of projects to be funded has progressed but there are difficulties involving legal and budget technicalities that still persist. Heads of government could provide an appropriate political impetus to get the operation up and running. It will then be up to the European Parliament to give its opinion: on budgetary aspects, its consensus is indispensable. An explicit political gesture from heads of government would be essential, given the scale of the amount involved and its operational availability, as well as the symbolic importance of the EU's direct financial participation in tackling the crisis. Robust action by the European Investment Bank (EIB) backing the initiative would be proof that Europe exists.
It would be positive if a second aspect were discussed by the informal summit, that involving explicit confirmation of financial support to Community mechanisms for member states not in the Eurozone and whose currencies are experiencing serious difficulties. This does not just involve countries that fail to fulfil the conditions for joining the Eurozone, but also, for example, Denmark, which chose to reject the Euro and Sweden, which will independently decide on the issue.
Let's not leave out GDP. A third initiative is possible, a summit reference that demands radical changes to methods for calculating Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This column discussed this issue in EUROPE 9843 and will return to the question with important supplementary information.
(F.R./transl.rh)