Olaf Scholz caused considerable damage in the EU with his double-boom narrative.

The German 200 billion euro program, which is intended domestically as a powerful answer to the fears of business and citizens of energy shortages and excessive prices, had the effect of a provocation in neighboring countries - especially because of the double-boom diction.

It was said everywhere that the Germans were selfish and had no regard for countries that could not afford such expenditures.

They favored their companies, distorted the internal market and violated the principles of "solidarity and unity", as EU Commissioners Thierry Breton and Paolo Gentiloni put it in the FAZ

Above all, the assertion that the German program is distorting the internal market does not go very far.

Measured against their economic output, a number of countries have launched similarly extensive programs.

But that doesn't matter for a long time.

The image of Germans who only think of themselves in crises is back in the world, as it was at the beginning of the Corona crisis.

At that time, Health Minister Jens Spahn provoked the accusation that Berlin always acted according to the motto “Germany first” in an emergency with hasty export bans for medical equipment, especially in Italy, which was badly hit.

A hypocritical accusation

Then as now, this accusation is somewhat hypocritical.

Especially in crises, the national shirt is always closer to every government than the European skirt.

But that doesn't change the fact that Scholz's bragging about German financial strength was extremely foolish.

The reaction from the heavily indebted southern EU states was not limited to complaints about distortions of competition, it quickly became tangible: Anyone who could afford to put 200 billion euros in debt for their own country should kindly also show solidarity participate in a debt-financed EU program.

Here, too, the discussion is reminiscent of the beginning of the pandemic.

The slump in the economy at that time initially led to calls for an EU economic stimulus program financed by the economically more powerful member states - and ended with the breaking of a taboo: the first massive EU debt for the Corona reconstruction fund.

Power-building motive

When Breton and Gentiloni are again demanding “solidarity” from Germany today, they may also be trying to give their home countries new fiscal leeway.

Another motive is more important.

The EU Commission wants to expand its own budget and thus its own power.

The two commissioners also know how this should work: There should be a new fund based on the model of the EU short-time allowance "Sure", which was also introduced during the Corona crisis and is also financed by debt.

According to the Brussels deliberations, the funding for "RepowerEU" - the program intended to make the EU independent of Russian energy - should be significantly increased from its funds.

The Sure program is worth 100 billion euros.

To finance it, the EU Commission takes out loans on the capital market, which are secured by guarantees from the member states.

There are several reasons why Sure has not received so much public attention: Germany does not need EU short-time work benefits, the program “only” covers 100 billion euros – but above all the member states have to use the Sure loans, unlike larger parts of the development fund resources , pay back.

The Commission is therefore promoting an energy fund based on the Sure model, arguing that it is not about new EU debt, but only about temporary security.

This is window dressing.

On the one hand, Sure already insisted that EU states with an excellent rating stand up for countries with a lower credit rating.

One may call this “solidarity”, but it is in any case a question of debt mutualisation.

On the other hand, experience with other debt-financed EU funds suggests that an energy fund would also become a permanent institution.

There is still no consensus on Breton's and Gentiloni's ideas in the EU Commission, and in view of the current considerable resistance from Berlin, the plans are likely to remain in Brussels' drawers for the short term.

It remains to be seen whether this will remain the case in the medium and long term.

Scholz is right: funds that could be reallocated are unused in the development fund.

The Berlin boom makes a factual discussion about it considerably more difficult.