It is a truism that the feasibility of EMU reforms ultimately depends on member states’ preferences, positions and strategies in negotiations to bring them about. This paper analyses the reactions of member states with regard to pertinent Commission proposals. It builds on a novel dataset collected in the frame of the Horizon 2020 project EMU choices on preferences and positions held by member states during the crisis years 2010-2015. These data are complemented by qualitative in depth case studies carried out on a selection of states considered as leaders in EMU debates, in particular Germany, France and the Netherlands, but also on a selection of states who suffered most from the crisis such as Italy, Spain and Ireland. The case studies focus on the legal and political feasibility of specific measures chosen from the Reflection Paper on the deepening of the EMU. The aim of this paper is to produce a detailed chart of member states positions with regard to both aspects: legal and political. This will contribute to the literature on ‘opening the black box of member state preferences’ and help us to understand on which basis member states’ preferences are produced.
Legal feasibility is assessed first with regard to the need for treaty change, second the compatibility with national constitutional law, and third fit or misfit with national ordinary legislation. As regards political feasibility, the paper concentrates first, on different ideological views on the design of specific provisions (solidarity vs austerity), second on governance architecture (supranational vs intergovernmental), and third, the degree and impact of politicization of the EU and EMU during elections as well as government changes as sources of derailment from feasibility.
