European integration is not being imposed on anyone. The mainly positive appraisal of ongoing action in the EU to transform the world of finance (see this column yesterday) should not hide the divergences and uncertainties. Political orientations are not all the same and it is normal that the innovations are not the same either, especially between the political groups at the European Parliament. Given that national interests are sometimes contradictory, it is logical that these differences are reflected in the work of the Council. Ultimately, it is up to citizens to choose what direction their countries go in and it should be the same at a Community level if citizens were aware of the role and powers of the European Parliament. In my opinion, it is necessary to calmly assess the hypothesis of Eurosceptics becoming a majority in a member state; European integration is not being imposed on anyone and the past proves that it is legitimate and possible to refuse to join or remain on the sidelines of certain common projects. The arrogance of some anti-European positions is, nonetheless, quite tiresome when political currents without any real support claim to speak on behalf of the people and throw curses around. Let's acknowledge that the people also have the right to assess things and change their opinions. Freedom of choice exists, on the condition that responsibility for the consequences of this choice is taken. There is a lot to say on this subject and this column will come back to the matter another day.
Hedge funds in a storm. Let's get back to the world of finance. The Commission has multiplied the initiatives and proposals, and the Parliament and Council's legislative activity is intense. Some fundamental orientations have been accepted but on others, fundamental differences persist. This column has reported on two cases of disagreement (EUROPE 9885); the role of the European Central Bank (ECB) in macro-economic supervision; and certification procedures for rating agencies. Last week we saw a third project being opposed, on hedge funds and private equity, as well as other speculative funds. The Commission was expected at this meeting because of the role of these funds and the fact that the person responsible for this sector is Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, the historic defender of the financial deregulation faith, and according to whom hedge funds are not the cause of the financial crisis and the accompanying storm. McCreevy presented his project as the first attempt to regulate hedge funds (see the summary of his press conference and his document in EUROPE 9892). If the planned regulation is adopted before the end of the year, it might enter into force in 2011. It will be for the next European Parliament to give its verdict on the issue.
The row was not, however, long in coming and even began before Mr McCreevy officially presented his project. A comment from one of the first to speak summed up well the tone of the opponents: the McCreevy project is a “thick smoke screen concealing the refusal to impose real control” on the organisations being targeted. The national passport that a fund manager would obtain in a member state would automatically become a European passport allowing him to act throughout the EU.
Project adversaries affirm that only the United Kingdom and Ireland support it. The experts indicate that around 80% of hedge funds are based in London and most are registered in Ireland. All the other member states, or almost all, oppose the McCreevy project as it currently stands. Pervenche Berès, the president of the European Parliament's economic and monetary committee, had, a long time ago, sent a letter to Mr Barroso, describing the project as “totally unacceptable”. Should we wait for other reactions from the current EP or should we assume that it would not be right for the EP to go into a decision that will be decided by future MEPs? One person asked for Mr McCreevy's resignation but this would be a purely symbolic act because he will not be in the next Commission which will have to defend the project (as well as the Council and Parliament). The Commission will also have the possibility of amending the project.
An uncertain division. Getting back to our starting point, for this dossier like the others, the next European elections will be decisive (in the hope that citizens understand it and turnout is high). The division, however, is not necessarily between Right and Left: some centre-right governments oppose the McCreevy project and at least one on the Left supports it.
This overview will be completed tomorrow with a few thoughts about tax havens, Euro-bonds and the link between EMU's monetary and economic management.
(F.R./transl.rh)