Community methods persist

In the course of the European summits held over the past months, tasked with addressing the debt crisis of Euro area countries, the German Chancellor and the French President emphatically took the lead. This behaviour has been criticised from the viewpoint of the Community, which constitutes the foundation of European Union cohesion. Some have spoken of a French-German “executive”. In fact, according to Community procedures, the task of European institutions, encompassing the positions and the interests of all partners, is to indicate the way and submit proposals that may be accepted as the premise for the decisions taken by all of its stakeholders. Moreover, in the ongoing crisis, this method doesn’t work. This is due to a number of reasons, whereby the institutional and political weakness of the European Commission plays a major role. Although it should be said that to this regard also Member State governments, notably the French and German governments, have done their share. These and other EU governments have been among those who ascribe to community discipline a lesser value compared to national procedures. This tendency can be explained also with increased inflation rates across EU27, and in particular, it is concretized in downplaying the importance of the will of the Community and of the decision-making processes linked to European institutions, favouring diplomatic cooperation and inter-government agreements. It must also be said that efficiently addressing the crisis that was sparked off by massive indebtedness in some Member States, largely depends on the willingness and initiatives of those States that have the means to do so. The crisis has not been caused by the European Union nor by the Monetary Union; it was caused by those States that failed to meet EU membership requirements, thus extending their agony to the entire system. Member States, in their capacity as the “lords of the treaties”, are also accountable for the fact that the Community system didn’t act earlier and better to counter these failures and prevent the crisis. According to a dated understanding of sovereignty they did not provide the EU with the tools that would have appropriately defended the system’s stability from the erroneous behaviours of its members. The legitimization of Germany and France at the lead of the EU in extremely difficult and critical conditions isn’t only due to the fact that they are the largest EU Countries, with the strongest Euro area economies. Their special responsibility also stems for the historical role of the two Mitteleuropean neighbours. After all, the fatal consequences of French-German enmity that kept Europe with bated breath for too long, caused the change of heart that triggered the European unification and pacification process, with the ensuing establishment of peace across the European Union. A justification of Germany and France jointly acting as Europe’s leaders, may also lie in the fact that the respective Countries and peoples ideally represent two historical principles and two opposite existences, that need to be synthesised for the benefit of European unity. Germany is substantially a continental power with a political and cultural influence to the North and to the East, while France is a power that is open to the West and to the South, towards the Atlantic and towards the Mediterranean. And from the ethnical and historical angles, these Countries represent two different forms of European influence. In fact, while France represents the Romanic and Catholic tradition, Germany incarnates the German and Protestant traditions. This gives rise to situations, perspectives and specific interests. Their decisive and parallel advancement, the harmony between the two Countries, are pre-requisites for the formation of the European Community. Their joint leadership orders and moves those forces that oppose the Community process thus prompting them to undertake paths leading to acceptable solutions for the EU. However, Nicolas Sarkozy’s and Angela Merkel’s proposals become decisions only when their partners accept them. The endorsement of such proposals is facilitated by the fact that the highest representatives of the European institutions – namely the presidents of the European Council, European Commission, European Central Bank and the Eurogroup – regularly cooperate for the development and the formulation of German-French proposals. Also for this reason it cannot be said that an “executive” is imposing its will on its partners.