Second wind? A federalist tendency has existed throughout the unification of Europe. Its history is well-charted and easily accessible and its supporters recognised as being among the main players in European construction. However, transforming their dream into reality never seemed likely. Sometimes expressed spectacularly, but without ever giving the impression that it would be achieved any time soon or that it was a realistic proposition, it was what it was - a dream. Yet it would seem that this tendency has got its second wind; its followers have multiplied in number and backing has come from figures at the forefront of active politics, such as Ms Merkel.
I don't believe in road-to-Damascus conversions. This new burgeoning of the federalist dream results largely from events in the eurozone: the fiscal compact contains procedures and decisions that are already federal in nature, for example, with regard to the sanctions that will be triggered automatically - any country which flouts the rules will be penalised without any specific decisions having to be taken. Management of the European currency implies dramatic loss of some aspects of national sovereignty. It is in this context that there arose the recent misunderstanding between some German authorities and the authorities of the other eurozone countries over putting the Greek government under supervision if it strayed from the agreed austerity measures.
How can one present a schema of stances that support a move towards federalism in the EU? For the sake of simplicity, I have chosen to set out three positions which may be said to sum up current trends: those of Ms Merkel, the head of government of the most powerful member state, of Mr Verhofstadt, the leading federalist MEP, and of the political movements which define themselves as federalist.
A long-term objective for Ms Merkel. The German chancellor has not hidden her view as she spoke with total clarity in an interview given simultaneously to six major dailies in six member states, one of which chose the headline: “My vision is political union”. In fact, virtually the whole interview responded to questions on the objectives and running of the euro and on the reasons which make it crucial for the eurozone now to have binding powers: “After we have promised dozens of times to reduce public debt and consolidate public finances, we must now make sure that, in future, these measures can be imposed or brought about through the courts” (see our newsletter 10539).
The final section is devoted to the institutional future, in answer to a question on the United States of Europe: “My vision is one of political union … because Europe is internal policy”, said Ms Merkel. She set out her thought in a passage that is short enough to be reproduced in full: “My vision is one of political union. Over a long process, we will transfer more powers to the (European) Commission, which will then handle what falls within the European remit like a government of Europe. That will require a strong Parliament. A kind of second chamber, if you like, will be the Council comprising the heads of (national) government. And finally, the supreme court will be the European Court of Justice. That could be what Europe's political union looks like in the future - some time in the future, as I say, and after a good number of interim stages.”
The objective is clear, then, but the timescale could be long. Neither does she say anything on the possibility of the creation of a United States of Europe, one in which, if necessary, not all member states take part.
For Mr Verhofstadt, there is no other choice. For the leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, federalism is not a matter of doctrine (or at least, this point is not at the heart of his reasoning), but of necessity. He has said: “There is no other choice than a federal Europe. The crisis is a challenge which opens up possibilities which have never before been offered. This is it! There is no other option”. He takes the view that, much more than a debt crisis, we are confronted with the lack of a credible and effective authority to manage the monetary union. Debt elsewhere far exceeds Europe's, but no one doubts that, in the United States or in Japan, the authorities can make decisions. In the EU, that is not the case.
Purely monetary measures will not suffice: what is needed is “a massive transfer of national sovereignty to Europe”. Austerity is, indeed, needed, but what is forgotten is that €1 trillion has already been spent on tackling the crisis and hundreds of billions more will follow. The solution is not to be found in “Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel's half measures”. If the euro were to fail, it would be ruinous for everyone, including Germany. And that, indeed, is the reason why Mr Verhofstadt is hopeful: everyone knows that there is no alternative. Ultimately, no member state will be able to be an individual member of the G8. The figures bear this out. If the EU is not united, they will all be out. All what will remain will be the multicultural, multilingual powers, like China, India and the United States. Europe has to become federal: “If it cannot manage a multicultural society, it will have failed”. What, however, is to be done with those Central and Eastern European states which give the impression of rejecting European unity? “Populist, nationalistic arguments lead to tragedy. Look at how in Hungary democracy is sliding towards authoritarianism, with all the possible knock-on effects for neighbouring countries”.
According to Socialist MEP Ana Gomes, the influence of Mr Verhofstadt's position is spreading: “He not only represents the position of his group, but often that of the whole Parliament. He has a genuinely European vision”. Former Belgian prime minister Verhofstadt is optimistic: “Pressure from public opinion will force things on. The European elections in 2014 are becoming hugely important. I predict that pro-Europeans will win.”
Federalists looking far into the future. To be able to summarise concisely the positions of federalist movements, I will follow the same procedure used thus far: taking a significant case, that of the Union of European Federalists - France, which is led by Jean-Guy Giraud.
His idea is simple: a Convention has to be called to amend the treaties currently in force. Through open letters to MEPs, Mr Giraud has launched a Campaign for a United States of Europe which is gradually developing positions on the various aspects of the initiative. One of the starting points targets ending member states' right of veto, which currently applies to any amendment of the treaties. Increasing the number of member states has made it ever more difficult to achieve unanimous agreement on amendment of these treaties. While it is true that there is a simplified procedure for this, the rule on unanimity remains valid for both the initial decision and for ratification of any change to the treaties. Use must be made, therefore, of the clause which allows any member state to decide to withdraw from the EU and negotiate an agreement on relations with it.
What is needed, then, is a mechanism for amending the treaties through agreement by a large majority of member states, and this mechanism has to be valid both for the decision to amend and the ratification. Amendment would be applicable erga omnes if it had been approved by a large majority of member states, representing a large majority of the population of the EU. Member states in the very small minority which do not ratify the amendment could either move to do so at a later date, or make use of their right to withdraw, or negotiate an association agreement with the EU (with the option of returning to the fold at a later time). The European Parliament could take the initiative on launching amendments. It has the power.
These basic points having been clarified, the Union of European Federalists - France has gone on to deal with numerous aspects of what this new EU would become. There is no reason for pessimism because of certain national stances at present: Mr Giraud stresses that the historic position of a country must not be confused with that of transient leaders (except perhaps in the case of the United Kingdom). Most of the ideas held by this movement are shared by other federalist movements, sometimes through formal links that may exist. It is clear that on some points there is no single position. I believe, however, that, in the main, the general thrust of federalist movements is relatively consistent.
Quite clearly, bringing about the proposed reforms is a long term endeavour, something that might provoke the reservations or concern of other leading figures. (FR/transl.rt)