The writer, an Italian senator for life, has been prime minister of Italy and EU commissioner for the single market and competition
Competitiveness ministers of the EU meet today to mark the 30th anniversary of the single market. They should be proud of having built the foundation on which the whole EU stands.
It is an irony that the benefits of such a successful project, whose parents were two British politicians (prime minister Margaret Thatcher and Commissioner Arthur Cockfield), would eventually be given up by the UK as part of Brexit. The Competitiveness Council should reflect on that precedent. The EU27 now risks losing the single market little by little as a consequence of the quest for “strategic autonomy” and economic security which, given geopolitical threats, are becoming overarching priorities.
Should “autonomy” or “security” be sought at the national level, even if that were to entail violations of EU rules? Or would such objectives be more easily achieved by joining forces? If so, the single market and certain common policies deserve higher priority than they currently receive.
French president Emmanuel Macron was right when he wrote recently: “What we need now is a comprehensive framework to implement this European consensus on sovereignty.” He proposed a doctrine based on “five pillars”. “The first pillar is the most obvious,” he said. “A commitment to competitiveness, greater integration and the deepening of the EU single market, which is the first condition for creating European champions.”
Macron went on to stress industrial policy, a traditional French concern. I believe that industrial policy, provided it is clearly formulated, can be important. And it is unlikely to be counterproductive as long as his first pillar is respected. But if it is not, the damage done to the single market would undermine the main source of European competitiveness.
The European Commission will present a strategy for economic security in June, which should include a section specifically on upgrading the single market. Five issues, in particular, require urgent action in order to improve its depth and resilience.
First, it is astonishing that the tools the commission has at its disposal to address infringements of single market rules should be the same as they were 30 years ago. It should be possible to bring them into line with those which have been available for enforcing competition ever since the signing of the Treaty of Rome.
Second, progress is still needed to put the services sector, so crucial in terms of its contribution to gross domestic product, on a footing even vaguely comparable to other sectors of the economy.
Third, the extent of integration in the so-called banking and capital markets union is lamentable. This can often be attributed to a form of “soft” nationalism on the part of governments, regulators and national central banks.
Fourth, the seamlessness of the single market is still significantly impeded by inadequate interconnections in transport, energy and telecommunications. It is a pity that the huge investment effort made in the context of the Next Generation EU post-pandemic recovery fund has not been more focused on cross-border projects.
Finally, the current commission, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, has been able to turn tragic challenges such as the pandemic or the war in Ukraine into opportunities for improved governance and greater acceptance of the commission’s role.
However, one does not get the impression that comparable effort has been put into the less dramatic, but no less important, task of making the huge improvements to the single market that are needed. This is particularly crucial now that this established pillar of the EU stands alongside such fashionable new preoccupations as strategic autonomy and economic security.
Credit: Source link
