Comments 9

A União Necessária da Europa

Aug 29, 2012 José Manuel Barroso

BRUXELAS – As consequências da crise da dívida Europeia estão demasiado presentes em toda a União Europeia, à medida que as economias em dificuldades tentam estabilizar e crescer ao mesmo tempo. Apesar das decisões importantes tomadas nos últimos dois anos, a realidade é que precisamos de fazer mais para superar os desafios enfrentados pela zona euro.

Estão a ser implementadas medidas de reforma e de consolidação em toda a UE. Foram postas em prática protecções financeiras conjuntas. E o Banco Central Europeu tem demonstrado repetidamente o seu apoio ao euro. Contudo, a nossa determinação é frequentemente subestimada por peritos e parceiros.

Todas as medidas até agora tomadas implicaram um acréscimo de integração Europeia, e não um decréscimo. É verdade que o processo de tomada de decisões no nosso sistema democrático demora por vezes algum tempo. Mas não nos julguem mal: estas negociações têm a ver com os planos de acção, e não com o resultado final. Há vontade política suficiente na UE para fazer o que for necessário para proteger o euro, porque o futuro da moeda única determinará o futuro da integração Europeia.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 in all 14 Comments on this article

John Brian Shannon Oct 29, 2012

José Manuel Barroso paints a very reassuring picture of the future of European stability.

It is easy to feel positive about the long-term (and continuing) political and economic success of Europe and the Eurozone countries, what remains to be seen is how quickly they can rebound from the present problems.

Of course many of us would like the plans discussed in the article to come to fruition today -- if not sooner. But we also realize that anything worth doing at all, it is worth doing right.

The sooner mutualized national debt assurance, a single financial services rulebook and fiscal and monetary union occurs, the sooner the economic recovery will happen.

Since the end of WWII, the European success story continues and looking back, every test provided an opportunity to either fail or succeed. Thus far, it has been success built upon success -- let us hope that will continue to be the case.

It's not just about Europe anymore, as increasingly, Europe's success is our success, wherever we may be in the world.

John Brian Shannon
http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
André Rebentisch Sep 5, 2012

What gets discussed here by the President is beyond the purvue of the European Commission. The question arises why Barroso does not do more within the community method framework, here the Commission enjoys a prerogative of legislative initiative. I am still waiting for a shift to Ordnungspolitik.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul A. Myers Sep 2, 2012

The high levels of sovereign debt will drive ever deeper European integration because at each step of the process integration is cheaper than some sort of default.

Financial integration can stave off default, but it cannot restart significant growth. So somewhere up ahead public dissatisfaction with zero growth has to lead to structural reform within the context of increasing integration.

The benefits of integration will flow to those countries that restructure to harvest the benefits. Undoubtedly this will be politically uncomfortable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Pitts Sep 2, 2012

Please clarify the issue of the 4.5 trillion euros used to rescue European banks:

How much of the money was repaid by the banks?

Of the part that was repaid, did the taxpayers gain or lose on the transaction?

Of the part not repaid, do taxpayers hold collateral? Are taxpayers likely to be repaid in the future?

(I don’t know the answers to these questions, that’s why I am asking.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Roman Bleifer Sep 1, 2012

Strengthening of European integration (including the creation of monetary and fiscal union), move to a confederal structure - it is the only way to keep Europe as one of the world's leading economic and political centers. Otherwise, Europe will become a dull province of the 21st century ( http://crisismir.com/analiticheskie-materialy/ekonomika/13-mirovoj-ekonomicheskij-krizis-prichiny-i-posledstviya-quo-vadis.html ). Only the strengthening of European integration is extremely slow, if anything goes. I doubt that the global crisis will give a lot of time.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alexandros Liakopoulos Aug 31, 2012

@Marc Pitts Have you not read the article??? This article, right here, Mr Baroso's article! Have you not read it?

I am amazed. Which part of Mr Baroso's statement - as follows - is not clear enough??!!! He writes:

"We must end the vicious circle whereby the use of taxpayers’ funds – more than €4.5 trillion ($5.7 trillion) so far – to rescue banks weakens governments’ budgets, while increasingly risk-averse banks stop lending to businesses that need funds, undermining the economy further."
- Mark Pitts Sep 2, 2012
  
  I was just asking for a reference so that I can read more and understand the situation better.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Aug 30, 2012

There is no question about the need of full integration,deeper and mutual cooperation at every level of life not only in Europe but all over the world since simply we evolved into a global, integral and fully interdependent human network which we have to adapt to.
But at the moment there is no democratic process, the process that is going on and is proposed is not democratic or free at all, it is simply a process to provide the present status quo safeguards, to continue the present excessive overproduction/over consumption machinery at all cost, totally regardless of the actual people of the actual countries.
So far it has been most obvious in the case of Greece where all the decisions, packages are driven through at a high level, without any participation of the actual nation, making their lives more and more difficult at every turn.
And the same fate awaits Spain and Italy, and then later on all the other members including Germany since the crisis does not stop as we are not solving it but deepening it by wasting all the resources on institutions and ideas that themselves are causing the problem. Instead of revealing and solving the disease all our attempts are aimed at hiding and maintaining it.
Until we understand the reasons why we are in a crisis, until we change ourselves and adapt to the natural system around us and start living within our necessities and resources there is no point in talking about integration, since we are like a group of thieves who join forces in order to be capable of stealing more effectively.
Integration has to go hand in hand with changing the foundation on we live our lives, we relate to each other.
We have run out of the time where half measures could succeed, we are surrounded by unbending laws we have to follow.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alexandros Liakopoulos Aug 30, 2012

4,5 trillion euros given to the banks from the European public cashiers... and we still talk about a "crisis"? What crisis? For who is this a critical situation? For Banks it was, nowadays it is not any more, due to people's money. And ot only that, they also defend their position in proposing the neoliberal arrangements they were always targetting, exactly on the very fact the people were obliged to buy their own deficits and to legalise scams of the past. Currently, they seem quite anxious to prove their predominant role on the European Institutional Map, through a Banking Union with no political counterpart. And the President of the European Commission backs them up in their proposals. Pffff... well, maybe banksters are right and there is a "crisis" at the economic field. However, if one examines the data of the "crisis" so far, if he/she analyzes the specific figures and the amounts involved, the direction of the capitalo flow and the ongoing neoliberal transformation of the EU's Social Model, one can come up with a concrete idea about the New Banksters Union of the European Continent... whether Germany will manage to balance this tension without destroying the whole of the project due to the well-known german reflexes on external pressures, is a an active bet on which the Peace and Prosperity of the whole continent is linked... and another bet is the reflexes of the European People: their response to the ongoing development of the Pan-European Banking Scam Operration which is described as "crisis", will very much form the final outcome of the process... Mr Baroso, Mr Draghi and Mrs Merkel, as also all other European Leaders (!) should bear in mind that ultimate judge of their actions are their people, as far as democracy still applies in EU...
- Mark Pitts Aug 30, 2012
  
  @Alexandros, Could you provide a reference for the amount given to European banks from public funds? Thanks.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank O'Callaghan Aug 29, 2012

This is part of the mechanism that should have existed before the single currency. It's absence was a gift to speculators. The current situation is merely a way of allowing private bondholders to make good on their lost bets at the expense of the European citizen.

A progressive redistribution of wealth in the egalitarian direction within Europe, together with distribution of work and power is the only way to ensure a growing economy.

The utilisation of this crisis to centralise power at the undemocratic core is the death knell of a better system. The move away from the social solidarity of the European model is an injection of instability. Modes of production in the global economy make increasing wealth easily achievable. The difficulty is it's distribution. Our 'fictionalisation' of finance is the greatest obstacle.
- Mark Pitts Sep 2, 2012
  
  @Aldo - I certainly agree with your conjecture that banks have to take responsibility for their actions. However, in advocating more regulation, you ignore two important points:
  
  Through government regulations, banks are more or less forced to buy government debt. Thus, in many ways their “irresponsible” actions were dictated by the state.
  
  In advocating more regulation, one argues for more decision-making power to the government. But governmental financial mismanagement is the reason many banks are having problems.
  
  It’s hard to argue that government is a better financial manager than the private sector. I wouldn't trust the politicians with my savings.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Aldo Dias Aug 30, 2012
  
  Mark Pitts - Of course you can, its called the free market. Losses are as important as profits, they ensure responsibility and adequate risk. The debt stems from businesses deals whereby the lending party calculated the risk of default of the borrowing party and established a correspondent interest rate. Shared responsibility is the cause of the problem and the rule of the game.
  
  Further, you seem to ignore or overlook the dynamic that the institutional crisis took on, whereby credit rating agencies where not only commenting on current conditions but also downgrading half the eurozone at a time for the stated reason of influencing impending EU summits. Speculation is not something that is born out of left-wing people's ignorance of or despise for wall street jargon. It exists now as it did in the time of the european exchange rate mechanism, and like then it was born out of institutional weakness and confusion and not underlying economic unbalances. This time around, however, there is clearly an added institutional weakness, which is the financial deregulation which led us to this, which persists unchanged and unfettered despite massive, transcontinental public outcry, and (seemingly) a consensus of the main, if not all, political parties.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Mark Pitts Aug 30, 2012
  
  The primary loss that private bond holders suffered was by "betting" that the governments would repay what they borrowed. You cannot blame investors because the governments mismanaged their finances.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/7uZ2Aa7/pt;

A União Necessária da Europa

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Will Italy Sink Europe?

The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

The Brexit Endgame

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Untapped Potential of EU-Africa Trade

Taming Capital Flow Volatility

Why a Sino-American Cold War Won’t Happen

The End of America’s China Fantasy

America’s Inflation Risks

Defining Diplomacy Down

The Powerlessness of the Most Powerful

What Has Google Ever Done for Us?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register