I usually
listen with great interest to the lunchtime interview on BFM business radio.
The journalist, Hedwige Chevrillon, asks well prepared and searching questions,
chooses her guests carefully and always manages to get something interesting
out of them. Monday’s guest was Jean Messiha, a senior official in the French administration,
interviewed in his capacity as the co-ordinator of Marine Le Pen’s presidential
programme. As BFM focuses mainly on economics, finance and business, most of
the questions concerned Marine Le Pen’s oft-stated intention of abandoning the
Euro and going back to the Franc.
M. Messiha
is a clever and ambitious man. Of Coptic Egyptian origin, he arrived in France
at the age of eight, did all his subsequent schooling in France, got a PhD in
Economics and graduated from ENA. He speaks calmly and stated clearly all the familiar
arguments to show that the Euro has been a failure and that France should make
an orderly exit and have nothing more to do with it.
Calling for
a serious “review” of what the Euro has failed to achieve, he went over the
usual ground: it has cramped French industrial competitiveness; the Euro area is
little more than a DM zone chafing under rules “imposed by Brussels”; it is not
adapted to the structure of the French economy; if France were to restore
its monetary sovereignty and devalue, economic growth would pick up, unemployment
would fall, deficits would be reduced and everyone would be better off. Asked
about Greece, his response was that “it should have left the Euro” in 2011
or 2012, presumably meaning that if it hadn’t gone quietly it should have been pushed,
the solution that German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaüble, was said to favour
at the time. Messiha was convinced that once all the “facts” had been placed before
the French people they would decide, in a referendum promised by Le Pen if she
is elected President, to abandon the Euro.
I found myself
thinking, with mounting irritation, that I had heard all this before…and that
it was only half the story. Listening with half an ear, one could have been mistaken
for thinking that France was the only country that had the Euro as a currency
or at least the only one that had problems with it.
I would have
liked to hear Messiha tell the other half of the story: that France shares
the Euro with18 other countries; that the 19 members of the Euro area have
decided, not unnaturally, to entrust its governance to European institutions
like the European Central Bank and the European Commission; that many of the countries
in the area, the original members as well as the more recent joiners, have submitted themsleves to painful economic restructuring. Portugal, Ireland,
Spain and the three Baltic republics come to mind, not to speak of Greece. How
come that France has come off so badly? Only because of the Euro or also because
it has not yet made the necessary efforts to put its own economic house in
order? As for Greece, Messiha seems to have forgotten that one of the reasons why
Greece did not leave the Euro during the crisis of 2011 and 2012 was that the Greeks,
in spite of everything, did not want to. If polls are to be believed, around
80% of the French do not want to either.
I cast my mind
back to another debate, in Germany, after the fall of the Berlin wall, long
before the introduction of the Euro. As a prelude to unification of the two halves of the country, Chancellor Helmut Kohl decided, against the almost unanimous view of
economists, that one Ostmark would be worth one Deutschmark. It was a political
decision. The economists were overruled, just as Schaüble was overruled by
Chancellor Merkel during the Greek crisis. Of course, many of the economic difficulties
predicted at the time occurred and the eastern part of Germany, however
remarkable its recovery, is still, on average, poorer than the western part.
But in 50 years time, long after the economic difficulties have been forgotten,
Helmut Kohl will be remembered as the Chancellor who did not fluff the historic
chance to unite his country in peace.
The Euro,
to be sure, will continue to generate heated debate about its economic merits
and drawbacks. Many economists like Joseph Stiglitz have been stinging in their criticism that the Euro area is not what they call an "optimum currency
area", like the United States, and therefore can never work.
The truth
is that the Euro is very much work in progress. Since its launch, institutions and
arrangements have been added, usually during or after a crisis, as so often in
the EU. The European Stability Mechanism (2013) and the banking union (2016) are good
examples. Others are necessary. The Euro area is still a long way from the transfer
union of the United States that took over 100 years to perfect. Fiscal
transfers already take place in the EU from the richer to the poorer members.
It will take longer for true fiscal federalism, in some form or another, to evolve. Is that a
good enough argument for abandoning the whole venture after less than 20 years?
That
process will indeed take years rather than months. But if European politicians do
not make the political case, debates between opposing schools of economists
will become increasingly acrimonious and toxic. The Euro, let’s face it, is
above all a political project, designed to help bring about that “ever closer union among the peoples
of Europe”, that is one
of the founding principles of the European Union. And that is precisely what Marine le Pen and her
like are afraid of.
But the
majority in most EU member countries, including I hope in France, seem to consider
that it is still a better path to follow than all the others. If that is the
case, political leaders should say so and do their bit to make the Euro work
better.
No comments:
Post a Comment