On whose side?

A widely debated question regards the stand to be taken for Europe’s future. In my opinion it will no longer be possible to keep a foot in both camps for various reasons.It is widely acknowledged that Maastricht’s flaw, namely, the fact of undertaking the path of the single currency without a central political power tasked with supervising national accounts and fiscal harmonization, was fatal. The statements regarding the respect of national budget deficit and indebtedness thresholds were ignored. The framework of the growth and stability pact was infringed by a large number of governments during the decade since the adoption of the single currency, and, since 2003, also by Germany and France. Furthermore, indebtedness was rarely the result of measures aimed at improving enterprise competitiveness. In fact, it served to finance national lifestyles, prestigious but unproductive projects, as well as generous social services, which lacked inclusiveness. Now, under world pressure, enterprises have stopped the hiring of new personnel, while unemployment rates surge. The cost of labour, consisting in revenues, taxes and social security, is unreasonably high to be competitive. We should stop concealing the truth. The implementation of labour market reform, the restructuring of social benefits and State rationalization, are crucial for many euro area countries. If not, Europe will suffer the backlash of global recession and won’t be part of the decision-making process regarding global development. In this scenario, the planning of health, social, and environmental policies is useless. The European Central Bank’s decision to open monetary dykes (On September 6) was welcomed, but its temporary feature should not be concealed. The ECB announced its intention to purchase the sovereign debt of those Countries with high interest rates on financial markets. Not all those called to comply will easily accept the condition whereby national governments must pledge to negotiate reform programs with the European Union. But even if such political agreements were stipulated, who will ensure that there will be no further deflections, as in the case of the Growth and Stability Pact? Who will ensure that a head of government one day won’t decide to violate the terms of the agreement with the EU and refuse to honor the debt? Nobody can! Unless a two-lane road is taken – that of fiscal union marked by shared budgetary sovereignty and the parallel path of political union geared at the establishment of authentic democratic process – the inevitable destination will be a second Maastrict.From now on, this is prevailing path and the midterm and final reports delivered in the October and December European Councils by the Barroso, Draghi, Juncker and van Rompuy quartet, will be crucial. This "twofold" path was partly supported on September 12, when the German and Dutch Constitutional Courts issued a ruling in favour of the euro currency. But this opinion is far from obtaining unanimous endorsement. That’s why yet another "twofold" path will have to be considered, namely, to undo the single currency, and at a later stage, to undo the common market established in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome. As regards the single currency, other Europeans won’t put up with the custom to await the Bundestag’s decision at each stage of the crisis of national indebtedness, which is bound to linger on. The end of the common market will also have to be envisaged, given that one of the main causes for the advancement of the euro project in the 1980s was the phenomenon of competitive depreciation of European currencies. It should be remembered that the European monetary system created in March 1979 was unable to resist speculative attacks, notably those conducted by George Soros, which led to the decision, stipulated in the Maastricht Treaty, to follow the path of the single currency, on the wake of German unification.This treaty has failed to keep its promises. Its mid-European stance (as regards currency) and its mid-national stance (as regards fiscal policy), have become obsolete. In the coming months all stakeholders, including Church movements and bishops, will be called to take a stand on the above-mentioned options.