Eurozone Governance

A decade after the crisis that came close to destroying it, the Eurozone remains fragile. Fiscal indiscipline, a key cause of the crisis, remains a relevant issue. Progress has been made to make the banking system safer, but much more is required to contain risk. Eurozone governance remains weak. This paper argues that six key steps are required to refashion the Eurozone into a robust monetary union capable of dealing with unexpected shocks in the future. These steps are: 1. Subsidiarity should be rigorously applied to straighten the existing muddled governance structures. 2. Banking Union needs to be completed to break the doom loop between banks and governments. 3. Pan-European banks and fully integrated financial mar-kets offer the best solution to absorb national disturbances. Implicit protectionism – through regulations and support for national champions – should not be accepted. 4. The responsibility for fiscal discipline must lie where the budget authority is exercised: at the national level. 5. The no-bailout clause is the best protection against fiscal indiscipline. It should be formally restored. 6. Some countries with large public debts remain vulnerable market sentiment fluctuations. However, there are ways to reduce these debts without any transfer or mutual guarantees.

While there is general agreement within the euro zone that further reform is needed, there is however disagreement as to which measures should be implemented. In a nutshell, member states disagree over the balance between risk sharing and risk reduction. Risk reduction proponents place the emphasis on crisis prevention, while those who emphasise risk sharing focus on crisis mitigation. This book represents a concerted effort by four prominent scholars from France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands to summarise the discussion in those countries and analyse in which areas the member states may find common ground to press ahead with reforms. The authors have been asked to provide a background to how the euro has been perceived in their respective countries and identify which EMU reforms would be acceptable in the short- to medium-term perspective.

The European Union seems to be moving from one emergency to the next. Europe’s leaders are in crisis-fighting mode: reactive, improvising, often uncoordinated – but ultimately modestly successful.
The Eurozone has not splintered; Russia is smarting under Western sanctions; some burden-sharing on refugees has been agreed. Busy with short-term problems, however, Europeans have taken their eyes off more profound, long-term challenges. How the European Union copes with its immediate problems in the next couple of years will determine how the continent will fare in decades to come.
In this White Paper, we – the Global Agenda Council on Europe – are analysing some of the most pressing issues confronting the EU in 2016-2017. We present the choices that European leaders must make in the years ahead and explain how these could shape the Union’s medium to long-term development. To illustrate how different policy choices interact, we have drawn up two fictitious scenarios of how the EU could evolve in the next 10 years.
The immediate economic concerns that dominated the European agenda in 2008-2014 are lessening. The cyclical upswing in the European economy, however, must not make governments complacent about the need for reforms. Faced with stagnating or shrinking working-age populations, European countries simply must fix their productivity problem to generate long-term growth. In innovation and digitization, Europeans often seem obsessed with data privacy and protection rather than grasping new opportunities. The European Commission’s laudable attempts to integrate and improve EU markets – for example, for energy and capital – have so far been slow to get off the ground. The arrival of millions of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees is a great opportunity for an ageing Europe, but only if governments, together with the private sector, act swiftly to help the new arrivals find jobs.

The new EU leadership – the president of the European Commission and his team of commissioners, and the presidents of the European Council and of the European Parliament – will have to address pressing challenges. Despite the significant steps taken by Europe – among them the creation of a European Stability Mechanism, the start of a banking union, the strengthening of fiscal rules and substantial structural reforms in crisis countries – results for citizens are still unsatisfactory. It is impossible to summarise all the memos in this volume but a common theme is the need to focus on pro-growth policies, on a deepening of the single market, on better and more global trade integration. Reverting to national protectionism, more state aid for national or European champions – as frequently argued for by national politicians – will not be the right way out of the crisis. On the contrary, more Europe and deeper economic integration in some crucial areas, such as energy, capital markets and the digital economy, would greatly support the feeble recovery. But in other areas, less Europe would also be a highly welcome signal that the new European leadership is serious about subsidiarity. Internal re-organisation of the European Commission to ensure that it better delivers would also be welcome.