|
|
The results of the first round of the French presidential elections are crystal clear: the overwhelming majority (90 per cent) of citizens cast their votes either for outright eurosceptics (Le Pen, Mélenchon) or for candidates who consider that the EU’s purpose is to promote first and foremost the exclusive interests of France (Sarkozy, Hollande).
If it is perfectly legitimate for the President-Candidate or for Mr Hollande to call for reforming a Union, whose integration is far from complete, it is highly disappointing that, in so doing, they appeal to nationalistic sentiments by promoting a reformed governance that is at the antipode of policies advocated for their own country: while they insist that the French State should bring all its citizens together, in particular the most vulnerable and disillusioned, whose distress and the message conveyed by the polls they purport to have so well “understood” (!), the Union, on the other hand, should have, in their minds, as main purpose to serve the country’s interests, failing which they should not hesitate to take measures unilaterally to impose France’s demands.
However, if there cannot be any doubt that the only “raison d’être” of the EU is to improve the life – in its broadest sense – of all its citizens (income, security, employment, human rights, justice, environment, etc.), the solidarity that must prevail between citizens of a same nation should find its equivalent at Union level.
Starting from the generally-shared premise that the implosion of the EMU and of the EU would be catastrophic for all Member States, and on a relative basis, even more dramatic for the richer countries that have more to lose (including France), the rhetoric aimed at flattering the French “exceptionalism” can only lead to disaster.
Presidential candidates should, on the contrary, convince the elector that defending the € and reinforcing the EU at any price, are the only policies capable of preserving most of the progress achieved over the last sixty years, a period during which both peace and a substantial improvement in living standards prevailed. It is also the sine qua non precondition to create the hope of a better future in a world that is inexorably subject to globalisation as reflected by the increase and acceleration in the volume of exchanges in their infinite forms and varieties. Such an environment requires the implementation of appropriate supranational regulatory frameworks both at European and global levels, in which the legitimate interests of Member States and of the EU can be promoted successfully only to the extent that its 500 million citizens speak with a single voice.
In such a scenario, French demands must necessarily accommodate equally legitimate requests of Europe’s 435 other citizens which implies compromises as well as a degree of solidarity indispensable to maintain a minimal level of social cohesion.
The federal governance model of the ECB, which is considered to be the only European institution capable of making a further decisive contribution to solving the financial crisis, should serve as an inspiration to those who advocate amending its mandate. To become even more efficient, the ECB must be able to dialogue – at least within the EMU - with a single counterparty capable of coordinating successfully the economic, fiscal and social policies of its members, similar to the situation prevailing in countries that have retained their full monetary sovereignty.
Similarly, the fully justified appeals for mutualising the sovereign debts of EMU Member States can only be heard to the extent that a “Federal Union” is put in place. This requires implementation of common strict budgetary disciplinary rules as a quid pro quo for the solidarity that benefits rich and poor, the whole being capable of delivering far greater benefits than the sum of its components.
Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are clearly opposed to further transfers of sovereignty; on the contrary, they threaten taking unilateral measures (border controls, financial transaction tax) or wave the spectre of De Gaulle’s “empty chair” policy, should their demands be rejected. Furthermore, they purport to have the means of controlling unilaterally – or exonerating themselves of – the dictatorship of financial markets, a claim bound to disappoint in short order a gullible public opinion. Thus, in the hope of recouping for the second round of the election the votes of the most vocal anti-Europeans, they are contributing – involuntarily – to the promotion of the worst scenario that would result from the dismantling of the EMU/EU.
At the time when there is the temptation to exploit the fears of the elector, confronted with a fragile world scene both economically (Europe, USA, Japan) and politically (Syria, Palestine/Israel, Iran North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan etc.), it is more necessary than ever to understand that Europe can be neither French or German but must belong to all its citizens.
The shouts of “Vive la France”, expressed with such gusto at the end of each electoral meeting, will be void of any significance in the absence of the equally imperative necessity to ensure the EU’s own survival.
Paul N Goldschmidt, Director, European Commission (ret.); Member of the Advisory Board of the Thomas More Institute
Tel: +32 (02) 6475310 / +33 (04) 94732015