The issue of approval of national budgets has been incorrectly installed from the beginning. It is clear that Member States may establish a fund that makes them potentially taking a risk of 500 billion euros without a preventive mechanism and control. It seems, therefore normal that a mechanism be put in place whereby a an independent European (and in any case not the Commission!) to conduct an objective review of national budgets.
It is presumptuous cons grant institutions it has in Europe or the right to approve the national budget BEFORE the debate, the government budget proposals. Both merge the finances of the States concerned.
For my part, I think there is a reasonable middle course and perfect: when the budget is tabled in Parliament, a European entity has issued a notice (a kind of “rating”) highlighting delinquency or default against the criteria of the Euro (for countries that are members) or European criteria (yet to be defined). This review, combined with the budget, would use all its weight in that consideration is non-political and completely objective and would be released when dépôt.Il can, therefore, be ignored in the debate budgetaiors.
If the Government and Parliament of the country is choosing to ignore the problems concerned, a procedure which would be implemented, it would be more strict and would aim to develop a process to “return to the nails.”It is only in the case of refusal to put the necessary measures in place systems that sanctions would be implemented: it is important that these sanctions do not increase the deficit, which was the case of existing sanctions and never applied: fines. In the case of the Eurozone, those sanctions should be absolutely coercive, under pain of being ostracized from certain aspects of the Eurozone.
This does not detract from national parliaments and governments. It is a light that ensures adherence to the principles of the Euro and we manage to avoid the crisis to Europe.