If Europe is to become trade union then let the bankers of Europe, much better
the European Union is founded, in fact, economic cooperation, integration of markets and finding the objective of freedom movement of goods, workers, and then push the capital's strongest progressive "weakening" national borders. For many years, so disparagingly referred to by some as "the Europe of bankers," just the reality of the Single Market has provided links and interdependencies have been the true backbone of the Community and laid the foundations of the Union. The undoubted benefits of market integration has made possible important "Transfer" of sovereignty, such as competition and trade policies on the part of the capital towards Brussels.
Through the Convention, the European Union is now looking uncertain political integration on democratic foundations and liberals, who, at least in a central and strategic area as that of a common foreign policy and defense, remains a chimera. Beyond an overall opinion on the Convention and its results, however, it must be stressed that the very field on which the economy has been less discussed and less action was taken.
Ultimately, the "economic constitution" of the Union, whatever the fate of the bill drafted by the Convention, will remain unchanged. Which, from our point of view, it is a good thing. The pressure to ensure a common economic policy and therefore central not missed, but the picture (confirmed) resulting from the Treaty of Maastricht to Amsterdam and then it was considered appropriate (or impossible to change, which ultimately is the same). Because of this, unlike other, we are not complaining? In a bar you could say that, as ever at this time, the European Union (its citizens, its businesses) in need of economic "good" economic policies rather than "common." What an economic policy managed from Brussels would give more guarantees and benefits compared to more dynamic competition between different solutions is, in our view, a common place. Just as it is a commonplace that it would consider the adoption of the single currency to take "automatically" the complete harmonization of economic decisions.
The need to ensure equal competition among enterprises of different countries and the ability to act without territorial restrictions within the EU accounted for - and are - a precondition of liberalization and open markets, the primary interest of consumers .
rules that Europe has set itself against the euro on budgetary discipline, in addition to those on the operation of the internal market, are, after all, writing a constitution of the bond balance in public finances that was advocated by Einaudi in Italy but that was never guaranteed by our Constitution (Article 81). Which today are the countries that chose to impose this clause (primarily Germany, especially considering the cicadas Italian) to suffer the penalty demonstrates the validity of this rule, not its failure. Some say that the U.S. show more intelligence at this time giving vent to negative deficit spending (military and not only) place that must be demonstrated the benefits of this policy, it should be emphasized that the countries who are traveling in Europe for several years at levels deficit is not so away from the U.S. (France, Germany and Italy) are those with the worst growth performance. Really worth it to bet on an even higher deficit would be better to look elsewhere or not the causes of poor growth and its "remedies"?
The credibility and strength of the euro will depend not only on the effective defense of the Stability Pact, but also by defending the autonomy of the ECB: The draft constitution reiterates that its objective remains the main Devra price stability and not to satisfy not better defined growth targets of EU governments.
We can also hide a certain satisfaction at the failure of the request for a generalized tax harmonization, remain implicit in the principle of unanimity on decisions about the level of rates and other key determinants of fiscal policy. Not only because it would be too easy to imagine an upward harmonization, but why tax competition is just one degree of freedom potentially very beneficial for the European total. The variable tax (taxation levels) are only one factor in competitive countries and responds to citizens' preferences in terms of size of public intervention in the economy. If, in order to strengthen the economy, attract investment and protect the citizens, Denmark and Sweden chose to maintain high public budget focusing on the efficiency of public administration while Ireland has focused on lower taxes, what's wrong? What advantage would derive from one level?
Unfortunately, the Common Agricultural Policy has passed unscathed the gauntlet of the Convention, with its burden of inefficiency and distortion - even before the waste. This is an inconsistency: the Lisbon that Europe has given the grandiose goal of becoming by 2010 the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world can not give up an imposing protectionist system which assigns to agriculture less instead of half the EU budget, for example, to support research and innovation Technology (policies that probably would benefit from an initiative at EU level too).
Furthermore, greater centralization of economic policy would undoubtedly be done in the name of defending and promoting the "European social model" and the "social market economy" that shows the rope in his crib, that in Germany (and to which both the existing treaties as the draft constitution art. 3 appear to favor). In short, the risk was to see prevail a transposition of the European concerted policy - not to say neocorporatist - that the Italians know well. So instead, everyone will be free, within a framework of common bonds, to pursue development models more oriented market economy without adjectives: the results will be judged by the voters.
A concern is expressed for the full inclusion in the new "European Constitution" of the "Charter of Fundamental Rights" adopted in Nice ridontante of so-called "social rights" that we hope will not become a source of endless controversy in the European Court of Justice.
In conclusion, having kept in the fields of the current rules of the European economy was a wise choice, avoiding the risk to be encoded, in fact, was an upgrade of a new intervention. Which, for those who still believe that today in Europe - despite recurring criticism of neoliberalism raised more than real - that should be confirmed to have "good" economic policies must be "less political and more market, after all, is not a bad result. Benedetto Della Vedova
Stefano Mazzocchi
