After the agreement between France and Germany on the recovery fund, the conservative press targets the German Chancellor accusing her of having paved the way for the dreaded transfer union with southern Europe and of not having taken into account the real German interests. If Merkel on the Recovery Fund is serious then it is also likely that she has no intention of applying again, because very hard attacks come from the popular and conservative press. For once, perhaps, the German government has preferred history books to polls on the latest election trends. Four reflections on the Franco-German agreement from FAZ, Tichys Einblick, WirtschaftsWoche, and Focus.
Also the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, newspaper with an almost always pro-Merkelian line, in a comment published in recent days, the co-director Berthold Kohler expressed strong doubts about the political sustainability of the transfer union:
(...) Because even those who would like to empty the nation states overnight by depriving their organs of all power even to the supreme courts, in reality are only damaging the European ideal. You can also go into raptures over the fact that the Merkel-Macron plan has laid the "foundation stone of a new Europe" - but European peoples still live very happily in their splendid and ancient constructions, the nation states. Which are also the home of democracy. There, the sovereign people still have a greater and more direct influence on political decisions than in Brussels. Even the feeling of belonging to a common destiny, for which sacrifice when circumstances make it necessary, remains much stronger in the nation states.
The biggest flaw in the unification process
There is still no such feeling of unity at European level. And this is the biggest lack of the integration process. The Germans are certainly not happy to have to pay the "Soli" (solidarity tax with the east) since the time of reunification, but they still pay it diligently. If a German politician asked for a similar contribution of solidarity for Spain or Italy he would experience a perfect "shitstorm", even if in truth many Germans would prefer to live in Tuscany rather than in Sachsen-Anhalt.
However, European identity cannot in any way compete with the sense of community that exists in national states, which did not emerge only in the times of nationalism, but was born as a form of clear demarcation from other peoples. In a world of limited resources, therefore, every act of financial aid that involves a donor waiver must have an even greater justification, for example, of the financial equalization between the German regions.
The biggest flaw in the unification process
Because even in a country well disposed towards integration, such as Germany, if the citizens had the feeling of being relegated forever to the role of the paying officer, the mood could change quickly. It would be foolish to think that in the name of the economic and political advantages offered by European integration, the Germans can only declare "solidarity" to the tune of billions of euros. Even if the value of peace and prosperity guaranteed by a Europe without borders could be transformed into numbers, solidarity is not the result of an account of profits and losses, but a matter of attitude and feelings. And in Italy, France, Spain and other European countries they should not forget that the Germans also have feelings, especially when indignation against the alleged non-solidarity Teutons ignites.
On WirtschaftsWoche instead Malte Fischer hopes, like many millions of Germans, that the Frugalist countries, led by Austria and Holland, will eventually succeed in establishing themselves on the Franco-German duo:
(...) With the reconstruction fund, Macron has further approached its goal of transforming the EU, thanks to a very effective propaganda on solidarity in terms of taking on the public opinion, pushing it in the direction always wanted and sought from France: from a community of self-responsible states to a transfer union that develops state power determined by the French's ambitions for power and financed by Germany as the main source of the transfers. The issue of own bonds, through which the EU can borrow money for the first time as if it were a state, is also a step towards the supranational state that European elites have always dreamed of.
German taxpayers will have to pay dearly for the fact that Merkel has decided to give the green light to an EU transformation into a transfer union. The argument that transfers from Germany to "Italy and Co." they would serve to guarantee the important export markets from an economic point of view and would therefore be in Germany's interest should not deceive us. If the argument were true, then Germany would also have to transfer resources to the United States and China. Definitely insane. In any case, the argument from the economic point of view is similar to the attempt of a sandwich kiosk owner to increase sales by giving his customers banknotes so that they can then buy his sausages.
Such a voodoo economy in Berlin's political circles could also dazzle someone. German taxpayers, however, must not be fooled. All that remains is the hope of the opposition from Vienna or The Hague. There they are certainly not enthusiastic about Macron and Merkel's initiative. The Austrian Prime Minister Sebastian Kurz, in fact, after consulting his Dutch colleague, immediately announced opposition to Macron's plan. Together with Denmark and Sweden, both countries insist that money from the reconstruction fund should only be granted in the form of loans. Therefore both countries will shortly present an alternative proposal.
Machiavelli's followers of southern Europe have not yet reached their goal. Especially since the establishment of a reconstruction fund has to be decided unanimously by all 27 EU countries. For German taxpayers, therefore, we cross our fingers hoping that Austria and the Netherlands remain to represent the interests of net contributors, for whom there are apparently no supporters in Berlin.
Also on Tichys Einblick, the great German intellectual and publicist Klaus-Rüdiger Mai goes down there and attacks Merkel accusing her of having ignored the real German interests:
(...) Put simply, this means that the northern countries, in particular Germany, will finance Spain, Italy and France, and this is because a situation of serious financial difficulty would be a disaster for the French banks, heavily invested in Italy . At this point it should be remembered that the average wealth of the citizens of "rich" Germany, according to an analysis by WELT, is lower than the average wealth of the citizens of Italy and France, but it will be the citizens of "rich" Germany who have to pay for the want to spend Merkel's money.
But if you know that Macron is from the French financial sector, then you also know what interests he is representing. However, the German taxpayer will have to shell out money to cover the crisis in the French financial sector in the decades to come. The German Chancellor accepted this plan - and nothing else - in a summit with the French president.
Never before in the history of the Federal Republic had a Chancellor ignored German interests in this way, had shown so little empathy for the lives of citizens, for the prosperity of the nation and for the happiness and future of our children, as it is doing now Angela Merkel. Never before in German history has a Chancellor renounced the sovereignty of Germany by borrowing enough to weigh heavily on the country and its citizens for generations, leading us only to economic ruin and impoverishment. Macron's dream of the European champions, who will be the French champions, will break the backbone of German small and medium-sized enterprises. However, they will be called upon to finance this dream
At the moment, German citizens can only hope for indefinite resistance from the heads of government of Finland, the Netherlands and Austria. But perhaps even this hope is only an illusion, because it could also be that these states would renounce their reservations if the Chancellor declared that Germany would take responsibility and share the reimbursement for the three states. Sure, it's an absurd idea, but hasn't absurdity become reality in recent years and reality hasn't become absurd?
Obviously, Focus could not miss, which with a comment by Hugo Müller-Vogg stands decisively against any form of transfer union to the detriment of the industrious and diligent German taxpayers:
(...) Italy, on the other hand, has allowed the last few very positive years to pass without doing anything to restore its disastrous public finances. At the same time, private wealth in Italy has reached new highs. According to Credit Suisse calculations, Italian private wealth is 5.5 times the GDP. In Germany, however, private wealth is only 3.8 times the GDP. This also has to do with the fact that no Italian government tries seriously to collect taxes with the same meticulousness with which the German tax authorities do.
And the result is grotesque: the Germans are poorer than the Italians - based on their per capita wealth - while the German state financially is much stronger than the Italian one. Consequently, the "poor" German taxpayers should support the "poor" Italian state. While the wealthy Italians prefer to invest their financial assets outside their borders.
Merkel and Macron lay the "cornerstone for a new Europe"
Emanuel Macron and Angela Merkel believe that the reconstruction fund represents "the cornerstone for a new Europe". Their new Europe will be like the previous one, and will have to rely on intergovernmental solidarity. Solidarity, however, should not be seen as a one-sided affair, that is, as the commitment of the economically stronger countries to the weaker ones. Solidarity, if correctly interpreted, also concerns the efforts of those who expect to receive help. Otherwise, dissatisfaction grows among those who have to help, which could also quickly turn into resentment.
The EU will support countries in difficulty, regardless of the name the funding instrument bears. If nothing changes in the other countries, it will happen that the German taxpayer will indirectly co-finance the social benefits that Germany itself cannot afford. Spain, for example, wants to introduce an unconditional basic income which we do not have. Italy misses billions of euros in tax revenues and leaves the retirement age at 65 (women: 60), while the German tax authorities intervene mercilessly and the Germans are moving towards retirement at 67.
France, in turn, guarantees employees the second highest minimum wage in the EU with € 10.14 per hour, which many companies can only pay thanks to state subsidies. German low-income workers, on the other hand, have to settle for 9.35 euros gross per hour. Macron would also like to get approval for his urgently needed pension reform, guaranteeing a minimum pension of 1,000 euros per month. Our minimum basic pension cannot keep up.
Citizens of donor countries have the right to have the solidarity of aid recipients
There is no doubt about one thing: the common market does not detract from Germany. In return, however, the Federal Republic has hitherto been the paying officer of Europe. German taxpayers have widely accepted this "exchange". In light of the economic upheavals caused by the coronavirus, the imminent bankruptcies and the business models in danger, however, the desire to show solidarity with other countries could be lost, especially if the beneficiaries were to lack the "attitude of those who receive solidarity".
Europe cannot function without solidarity. But citizens of donor countries also have the right to have the solidarity of recipients.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento