If we do not want the current upturn in the financial markets (which gives the illusion that the euro is saved) to be a parenthesis between two storms, it is urgent to restore economic growth and for this, to clarify the political strategy required.
Today, it can only be assumed with certainty that eurozone governments want the euro to survive, without losing any of its members; and that the ECB will do what it can to help them.
But this will, if it is necessary, is not sufficient: growth is zero, while deficits are rising, so the Debt/GDP ratio can only increase in all of the countries of the eurozone, risking again the rise of the cost of public debts and discrediting any austerity policy.
The euro therefore will be able to survive only if structural reforms conducive to growth are carried out as quickly as possible, in every country, and if, at the scale of the eurozone, we finally decide to use its « fiscal capacity » which President Van Rompuy talked so wisely about.
For that purpose, we must first end an ambiguity: Mr. Van Rompuy is the President of the European Union and the « fiscal capacity » which he speaks of is that of the eurozone, for which he is not in charge.
There are actually two Europes: that of the Union, a total of 27, which can only be an area of state under common laws in some very limited areas, and the Eurozone, a total of 17, because it is an area with a single currency, which must become an area of fiscal harmonization, budgetary coordination and large projects.
Therefore, if we continue to allow the Commission and the Parliament of 27 to deal with the problems of the Eurozone, a paralysis is likely to occur: none of these two institutions are mandated to organize the common future of 17 countries, necessarily different from that of 27.
Also, surreptitiously, under the pretext of dealing with it, the Commission and the Parliament will continue to derail the eurozone, because it can only escape them, like abusive parents envious of their child.
We must therefore distinguish the institutions of these two Europes. And in particular their Parliaments.
And since we committed the waste of building in Brussels a second building for the European Parliament, whose headquarters though, according to treaties, is in Strasbourg, let us take advantage of this to take a radical decision: in Brussels, the Parliament of the Union; in Strasbourg, that of the Eurozone: there would gather together the members elected to the European Parliament of 17 member countries of the Eurozone (who in fact have never met as such, even informally). This new parliament would appoint and could dismiss the President of the Eurogroup; it would hold a hearing with the President of the ECB, would control the MES and banking supervision, would manage the fiscal and budgetary coordination, and later would collect tax on financial transactions, paid to the European Treasury in charge of issuing euro bonds, which would fund growth investments.
Very quickly, almost as a matter of course, such a parliament would be a constituent assembly. Europe could begin to live truly.