An indivisible pair

Many analysts say that the economic crisis, apart from being a huge problem, with painful and real repercussions, also represents “an opportunity”. It’s not clear, perhaps, what opportunities might be opened up by billions of euro going up in smoke, companies going bust, thousands of jobs being lost. And yet the recession that still has Europe in its grip, that has destabilized the eurozone and burdened the public accounts of many countries, has triggered a heated, and in some respects useful, debate in Europe, in which various polarizations have been newly defined: EU institutions and national governments; stringent and heavily indebted member states; eurosceptics and europrophets…Global crisis, common actions? These polarizations were expressed, other than in the mass media and in the recent summits of the 27 heads of state and of government of the EU, also during the debate on economic governance, held in the European Parliament on 16 November. The debate between MEPs and the leaders of the main EU institutions especially showed how wide is the gulf between ways of understanding the crisis and formulating responses to it. On the one hand are those who – bearing in mind the “global” aspects of the crisis and the growing interdependence of European economic systems – call for a common, responsible and even shared response. On the other, are those who (though with varying positions and nuances) advocate national responses, aimed at privileging or defending the interests of their own citizens, albeit in a context – no one denies it – of complex and global challenges.Single currency and European project. The Eurozone “is not a derogation from the European Union, it is part of the European Union”, declared Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council in his speech to the EP in Strasbourg on 16 November. He underlined the need for stricter governance. He insisted on the fact that the single currency is an essential element of the EU project; there are 17 states that currently adopt the single currency, but potentially, pointed out Van Rompuy, all the other countries could “in due course join the euro”. Many MEPs supported the opinion in London, where the premier David Cameron has once again in recent days underlined the divide that remains between the UK and the process of European integration. In his speech, Van Rompuy listed the provisions taken at the EU level over the last 20 months to address the crisis: from the creation of three financial supervisory authorities to the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, from the “European Semester” to the European bail-out fund, from the “Euro Plus pact” (23 states committed to working together on structural reforms) to the “six-pack” and the important Europe 2020 programme. “We are acting in the short term to tackle the recession, but at the same time we are looking to interventions in the medium and long term”, especially in three areas, emphasized the Belgian politician: coordination of economic policies, fiscal discipline, reinforcement of the single currency. Responding to the challenges. “Economic recovery is at a standstill”, “global economic conditions have worsened”, the crisis is weighing on families and workers, and “there is an excessive burden of sovereign debt to be supported. So an integrated and effective response is needed”, through shared governance that should cover multiple aspects: debt, tax, financial markets, employment. “Today we need stability and solidarity, together”, said José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission, intervening in the debate, in a speech in which he analyzed the situation. He declared his conviction that “the real response now is growth”. He indicated a twin-track approach: “Respecting, at the national level, the commitments made at the EU level; and acting in such a way that the EU institutions remain at the centre of the common response to the challenges imposed by the crisis”. Barroso, former premier of Portugal, has no doubts: “Other institutions are not needed, the government of the euro area can be provided by the Commission”, in a direct and continuous relation with the member states gathered in the European Council. “This is because the euro is not separate from the EU, but is at the heart of the European project”. Pro and contra. Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Premier and President of the Eurogroup, for his part declared: “From the measures we have taken in recent months we must draw lessons. Some results are appreciable, but clearly not outstanding”. The results need to be improved, in a “concerted action between EU and States”. Juncker explained: “Economic governance cannot be the exclusive competence of finance ministers. It is essential for the EU Council, in its various compositions, to address the question of governance”, taking into account the social, territorial, employment, energy, and infrastructural (investment) aspects in economic decisions. In the ensuing debate MEPs expressed a variety of positions: a pro-European view was predominant, but nationalist and even regional persuasions were also present. And if some MEPs asserted that “we need more Europe”, there was no shortage of those who shouted the opposite: “Long live the sovereign power of nation States”. This too is the EU.