Home > Archives > 11 - 2011 > Balancing the books is in itself one of the most fundamental political operations
EDITORIAL
from issue no. 11 - 2011

Balancing the books is in itself one of the most fundamental political operations


The basic misunderstanding is the widespread belief that the need for a sharp cut in public debt depends only on the requests and the obligations imposed by the European Union, as if physiologically necessary recovery could be avoided


by Giulio Andreotti


German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti at the end of the three-sided talks in Strasbourg, 24 November 2011 [© Associated Press/LaPresse]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti at the end of the three-sided talks in Strasbourg, 24 November 2011 [© Associated Press/LaPresse]

 

We can’t deny that the EU is going through a difficult moment. But I believe that fact makes this the proper time to stop and think: starting from the affirmation that, despite the difficulties, the path taken was and remains the right one. No one thought that the path to the Union was strewn with flowers and easy targets. In the last fifty-four years developments have been more positive than expected, despite the not rare interludes of so-called Euro-skepticism and the action of powerful groups working for self-sufficiency within single countries.

The summit in Brussels on 9 December 2011 ended with an agreement which should be followed in March by an intergovernmental treaty on the Union budget that was not underwritten by the UK alone. Many people have commented on this commitment as a constraint on the finances of their own country, as the opening of a season of further sacrifices and taxes that could aggravate the current economic crisis.

As at other times in the past – and I’m thinking, for example, of the years preceding the entry into the single currency – the basic misunderstanding is the widespread belief that the need for a sharp cut in public debt depends only on the requests and the obligations imposed by the European Union, as if physiologically necessary recovery could be avoided.

In addition, an increase in taxes to match the needs of European stability certainly does not stir sympathy for the Union, giving rise to newfangled and extravagant notions of leaving it. Because Europe is a unitary fact but composed of many items that need to be totted together. If you remove one item from the others there is no alternative to going into liquidation.

When one thinks, however, one sees that settling a country’s debts is still something to be pursued, and that outside of Europe neither Italy nor any of the other countries would have any possible reward in terms of development and prosperity.

For example, it is unrealistic to suggest an alternative between progress of the Union and fighting unemployment. I don’t know if the EU itself can achieve its aim of increasing employment opportunities, but it is certain that the individual States alone would certainly fail.

The same applies to the euro: we have many problems with the single currency, but out of the euro we would have one more on top: our very existence.

It’s true that the concept of simultaneous monetary and institutional development is flawed and that this can lead to serious consequences, but to oppose, as has been done, the Europe of the accountants and bankers to that of politics is a wrongheaded exercise because balancing the books is in itself one of the most fundamental political operations. I remember that one of the architects of the Maastricht Treaty was the ‘banker’ Guido Carli. And, by the way, even then there were those who doubted that Italy had a chance of meeting the required parameters.

Perhaps the transition from Community to Union and enlargement both to 25 and then to 27 were overhasty. And the signing of the Constitutional Treaty, which took place, again in Rome, on 29 October 2004, was not altogether natural, but we must not let this moment pass without reinvigorating our supra-national beliefs. Even complaining about feared special agreements between Paris and Berlin is misleading and harmful because we must not create a persecution mania that there is anti-Italian feeling and because governments come and go but the principal foreign policy remains. Axes of preference between countries have never proved fruitful, and neither France nor Germany would benefit from a downgraded Italy. The Coal and Steel Community was born as a form of solidarity between Germany and France, two historical enemies, and it was a solidarity shared with Italy and the three Benelux countries with their characteristic Northern European links. We, as Italians, are proud to be among the six nations of the courageous Mission in 1957. This may create us some rights, but certainly many duties.

I believe in conclusion that a pause for reflection is therefore necessary, without lowering flags or exacerbating the critical aspects. We older people, who had the good fortune to participate in the enthusiasm of the early days, facing down very widespread opposition and skepticism, must urge people to continue to believe in the benefits of a united Europe. Even in a difficult time like this. After Calvary, there is resurrection, even if is not an automatic fact.



Italiano Español Français Deutsch Português