A detail on the MES
Oh well, you know it: for us, the debate on the MES was closed more than ten years ago. We can therefore allow ourselves to face it with greater serenity and competence than is ordinarily done around, we can delve into the details, which delight connoisseurs (that is, ours), help us enrich the overall picture, and make those of we (me) who have to linger in anachronistic public debates on this stale issue.
It is said that the negotiation (if it exists) on the reform of the ESM is linked to that on the reform of the European rules. In my opinion, this discourse doesn't quite make sense, and then I'll tell you why, but there are some similarities in the two debates, even if it's not the type that it's convenient for the country's enemies to highlight. The detail that is not a detail consists in the fact that the ESM is not an institution of the European Union , it is not foreseen and regulated by the Treaties, but it is a fund established with an intergovernmental treaty. Why should this matter to us? Because it's not unique . Do you remember the Fiscal compact? How much we talked about it on this blog! With what pathos!
The pathos that the material and the moment demanded, of course. Among the various provisions of the infamous Treaty on stability, coordination and "governans" in the Economic and Monetary Union , in art. 4, there was this:
An absurd provision because it penalizes our country, and also because it is redundant: the "rule of the twentieth" was in fact already provided for in one of the "packages" of the Six pack, regulation (EU) no. 1177/2011 , which in art. 1, paragraph 1, letter b reported:
So, "de precise", what was the Fiscal compact for? Nothing: to force our country into a further act of submission, one of many, of those which according to the Commission would serve to reassure the Markets, and according to the Markets serve to appease the Commission (that's a game of the parts)!
Do you want proof? I'll give it to you right away! Now that, in order to lure us into the trap of an agreement which in my opinion is worse than the Stability Pact, we are being told that the twentieth rule will be abandoned by reforming the Six Pack (the texts are on the way, I'll show you as soon as I have time), someone asked the question: but how do we derogate from the Fiscal Compact? The Twentieth Rule is there too, and the Treaty is still in effect! We cannot promise that we will eliminate an absurd rule if, in addition to reforming Community law, we do not also review this international treaty!
Surprisingly, the answer of the real legal doctrine (that of the supremacy of Community law, to understand each other), was a simple: sctaapposct! The problem exists:
but the solution is at hand:
that is: since the Treaty states that its provisions cannot be interpreted in conflict with Union law and cannot have results incompatible with this law, then if this law changes, the Treaty disapplies, indeed: it does not even disapply. It simply doesn't exist! (source: Hearing of Tosato in the Budget Commission ).
And here we get to the point, because, as you well know, the principle of supremacy of Union law is affirmed also in the Treaty establishing the ESM, and more precisely in its reform:
What does this suggest to us? Simple! That the MES would also be applied to us, and interpreted for others. We have to put the money in, the others have to take it. We have to meet conditions, others have to set them. And so on.
It goes without saying that, even apart from these considerations, any prospect of "exchange" between revisions of an intergovernmental Treaty and amendments of Community law is ill-posed, because it considers different quantities.
But above all: the creation of a class of bureaucrats immune from any jurisdiction:
and which at any time can unleash a speculative attack against a country by leaking negative assessments of that country's creditworthiness:
it is something obviously non-negotiable. It is understandable that the PD finds it convenient to bankrupt a right-wing government with a simple phone call to Luxembourg, in the vain illusion of being able to replace it. But it doesn't suit us, and when I say we I mean primarily those who are here.
Running not the risk, but the certainty, of blowing up the day after signing something which, when it were to apply to others, would be immediately superseded by the elusive EU law?
Also not.
And now let's talk about something else.
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2023/06/un-dettaglio-sul-mes.html on Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:18:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.