La Croix, edition of 30th August 2011

Forum: Sylvie Goulard, MEP for the Group of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE.
QED : the Finnish example

- In exchange for Finland participating in the bailout, the Finnish parliament has just asked Greece for guarantees which only serve their own interests.

- If the 17 governments of the Euro zone were to do the same thing then solidarity would be impossible.

- We need a "European" economic and monetary policy pursued by a government worthy of this name

Imagine that in a field playing a key role concerning a country's future we call upon a "government" made up of the leaders of 17 regions deciding unanimously, after each of the 17 regional assemblies have authorised the decision, and that this "government", as a collective body, is not held accountable and can not be censored. Finally, in order to manage crises of an extreme gravity and to manage the whole economy, this "government" meets twice a year. No-one would have confidence in such a singular institution. This is why the "markets" do not believe in the proposals made by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in order to consolidate the Euro zone. They are trying to understand if the "common house" is solid.

In the face of urgency, the governments have promised to do “whatever it requires to defend the euro”. Difficult decisions were taken which soon revealed themselves to be insufficient: the ‘bailout’ to Greece in May 2010 has already needed to be revised. Contagion has spread to Spain and Italy. This crisis has not randomly occurred but is the result of a mutual lack of commitment. If the creation of the Euro had been accompanied by a common economic policy we could have saved millions of households from unemployment and poverty. What further sufferings do we need to be subjected to in the name of sovereignty which is incompatible with a single currency?

We have already lost far too much time. The former Belgian Prime Minister and an important European figure Paul-Henri Spaak already wrote....in 1964 : (non-official translation) "I have never been able to understand how they have dared to offer us as the ideal system of European organisation, an organisation which we would reject with a shrug of the shoulders were it to be proposed for our individual countries(...) How can we speak of a united Europe, when, after having met and discussed suggestions of differing degrees of vagueness, there is no, and there has never been, a common decision or obligation to follow a single policy together. This version of Europe seems completely insufficient to me, and to a certain extent I find it dangerous (...) I really am fearful that these meeting and discussions, far from helping points of view to converge instead makes divergences all the more obvious and deeper, and therefore makes all common action impossible."

The current crisis has proved him right. Thus, in exchange for Finland participating in the bailout, the Finnish parliament has just asked Greece for guarantees which only serve their own interests. To a certain extent, Helsinki’s parliamentarians have done their job, in that they have defended the interests of Finnish taxpayers. However, if the 17 governments of the Euro zone were to do the same thing then solidarity would be impossible.

Alongside a monetary policy pursued by a "European" Central Bank, we need a "European" economic policy pursued by a government worthy of this name, or at least by a single finance minister, as Mr Jean-Claude Trichet has suggested. But once again it is essential that these representatives are democratically appointed, following a political debate at the level of the whole Euro zone, and their work must be subjected to control by the European Parliament. This is the only way to ensure that general interest is upheld. Some people respond that public opinion is not ready for a federalist leap. This is merely a pretext. What is needed is to adopt a timeframe split into stages. As long as it is followed, the process can be spread over time; this method was successfully employed in the creation phase of the Euro. If citizens and the markets could foresee a collective path towards unity, they would refind their confidence. In a first instance, we could make better use of the existing Treaties which already place the European Parliament alongside national finance ministers as co-legislators in the field of economic policy and able to play an increased role in crisis management. The European Parliament fully intends to make full use of its powers: thus, yesterday the Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee met for a hearing with the ECB President, Jean-Claude Trichet, Commissioner Olli Rehn and President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Junker. In the legislation currently being examined concerning "economic governance", the European Parliament has already proposed reinforced discipline, democratic dialogue and the creation of Eurobonds, pooled debt could be a solution to the current crisis, while calling of course for an in-depth debate.

In time, we should also consider other steps forward, even if they would require a treaty change. National vetos and solidarity are not a good combination. That is the lesson to be taken from the so-called sovereign debt crisis.