From theory to realisation. Many are the European political forces which believe that the time has come to relaunch efforts for a new treaty which seeks to build a genuine political union. This has been under discussion for many a long day, ever since the Spinelli project and through many other initiatives. Today, those calling for further strides along the path of European construction are ever more of the view that the time has come to act, to move from the theoretical to the realisation of projects. There has never been any shortage of projects, and I have regularly had the opportunity to take stock of them along the way. What lies behind this relaunch and scale of the projects is the recognition that, in certain areas, the responsibility and independence of national governments in decision-making is more notional than real (even though public opinion may only be partially aware of this state of affairs.) The federalists who, even until recently, could be seen as dreamers preaching about some far distant future, have, indeed, established tight timescales. Also making themselves heard as spiritedly as usual are those who consider themselves to be the prophets of our era, those celebrated figures who address the widest audiences, well beyond specialist European affairs circles. Here is what Bernard-Henri Levy had to say: “It is inescapable. Without federation there can be no common currency. If there is no political union, the currency may last a few decades then it will fall apart. If there is no political integration ..., if nation states do not cede sovereignty and if the sovereigntists, who in fact are pushing peoples to turn in on themselves and towards failure, are not roundly defeated, the euro will break asunder”. He warns: “Political union or barbarity. Federalism or break-up, with all that that brings in terms of social regression, loss of security, widespread unemployment and poverty”. His conclusion: if it does not further integrate, Europe “will pass from History and sink into chaos. It's political union or death”. Certainly no understatement there, is there?
Detailed but not homogeneous projects. How far the general public will be persuaded by the above rhetorical discourse I have no idea, but it leads us on to the detailed projects and political initiatives.
Last week, Andrew Duff, Jo Leinen and Pauline Gessant presented a petition to the European Parliament calling on it to make use of the powers granted it by the Lisbon Treaty and to begin review of the Community treaties with a view to setting up a Fiscal Union, headed by a federal economic government. The call is currently being looked at in the Parliament's petitions committee, prior to a debate, open to the public, between the constitutional affairs committee and the economic and monetary affairs committee. Other detailed projects already exist, however.
I will look at three, which go beyond setting out general objectives and clearly show the direction and nature of the proposed changes to the current texts.
1) The report published by Notre Europe on the issue of “Moving towards Fiscal Union in Europe”. It was drafted by the “Padoa-Schioppa Group”, chaired by Antonio Vitorino, and has a preface by Jacques Delors and Helmut Schmidt. This column covered it fully in June and it has just been officially presented in Paris. In it, Jacques Delors says he feels that a two-speed Europe is inevitable if the Fiscal Union is to function effectively. I will return to this later.
2) The position of the Union of European Federalists, which is chaired by the above-mentioned MEP Andrew Duff. Duff argues that a wide-ranging review of the current treaties is needed in order to include those elements of economic governance that have been adopted by the EU since 2008. A Constitutional Convention should be opened in spring 2015, with the aim of adopting innovations such as: - the creation of the post of High Representative for the Economic and Monetary Union; - the right of the Parliament to dissolve itself if it censures the Commission; - a pan-European electoral constituency; - stronger relations between the EP and national parliaments; - a new category of associated members that would take in the United Kingdom and even Turkey and Serbia; - ratification of changes to the treaties by qualified majority (of, for example, four fifths of the member states).
Mr Duff is of the view that it is better to wait until after the European elections in 2014 before setting up the Convention in 2015. Preparations should, however, be begun immediately.
3) The position of the Union of European Federalists - France. Its chairman, Jean-Guy Giraud has constructed a project which differs from that of Andrew Duff; for example, on the timescale. The comprehensive reform that will put the EU on the path towards an ever-closer Union among the peoples of Europe (an objective contained in the current treaty) should be begun in 2014, the year in which a new European Parliament and a new Commission will be formed. As part of its campaign for a United States of Europe, the UEF-France plans to hold a Conference on European Federalism as soon as possible.
Mr Giraud has considered all possible paths: revision of the current treaties; a Constitution; and a Constitutional Treaty. He has gone with the majority decision rule (four fifths of member states and of the population) in order to avoid the danger of any single member state being able to block progress. Any country or countries which reject this could either ratify the decision within a set time or begin the procedure to leave the Union. Mr Giraud supports allowing the Institutions to decide on the expulsion of any member state which is guilty of serious breaches of Union decisions, principles or basic rules. How the Economic and Monetary Union operates should be set out clearly, the capping of resources ended and the EU budget fully funded by “own resources”. The conditions for enhanced cooperation should be relaxed (they already exist, in theory, but, under the current rules, they have never been used) and differentiation acknowledged and simplified.
The way the institutions work should be subject to root and branch review: Parliament should be involved in foreign and defence policy decisions; the European Council should become the State Chamber and not a super-institution “at-large”; the right of veto should be reined in; and the Commission president should appoint the commissioners.
Other projects and stances adopted. The Movemento Federalista Europeo, founded in 1943 by Altiero Spinelli (who wrote the Ventotene Manifesto while he was imprisoned by the Fascist regime), remains committed to a European Federation which brings together the eurozone countries but is open to other member states. This project makes provision for a restricted membership European Parliament, bringing together the countries of the new eurozone federation, which would have shared legislative powers with the State Chamber of the countries of the zone. The European Commission would become a democratic government elected by the Parliament.
I would also note the stances adopted by a few leading figures.
European Council President Herman Van Rompuy advocates the appointment of a European economy minister and a eurozone central budget (see EUROPE. 10688), as well as democratic structures specifically for the euro area. His proposals are currently under discussion with governments' representatives and three MEPs and will soon be made public.
Michel Barnier calls for institutional changes, including: an EU president elected by the European Parliament until such time as the holder of the post is elected by universal suffrage; and a European finance minister.
Peter Mandelson suggests flexibility in the way the Commission works, with the option of meeting and deliberating in restricted session - weekly meetings of all 27 commissioners is not an efficient way of working.
The “two-speed” issue. This column has already commented on the position of Jose Manuel Barroso favouring the term Federation of Nation States, coined by Jacques Delors, and has also drawn attention to what makes the two projects radically different, even though they bear the same name. Mr Delors believes that it is inevitable that the EU of the future will comprise two groups of states, with differentiation that will allow for different degrees of keenness in areas such as the euro, Schengen and maybe even defence. Mr Barroso, on the other hand, argues that there can only be one Union, one Commission and one Parliament.
Here is the nub of the matter: will the EU remain a single, compact unit, or will it necessarily have to become a two-speed Europe, as, in practice, it already is?
My view is that progress towards European integration, as set out in the projects outlined above, will be impossible to achieve with all member states on board. Objectives and ambitions differ so widely that none of these projects could be brought to fruition, or, indeed, be viable, where unanimity was required, remembering, too, the further accessions in the pipeline. With unanimity often being required, movement towards Community integration would be rejected by some member states. In several instances, a number of countries would not be able to subscribe to or meet commitments.
Without dual speed, the most ambitious projects would be doomed to failure because of political hostility or economic shortfalls in one or more states. Nor must an oft-overlooked point be forgotten: within the European Parliament, MEPs from countries which have not adopted the single currency are involved in the institutional management of the euro. Where is the logic or the democratic fairness in that?
The UK could block everything. Of course, the British problem must not be forgotten. London will never accept the proposals outlined above and will make impossible the unanimity required. Is this a further point in support of the “two speed Europe” or does it mean British involvement that is specific and partial, in the EU of the future? This is a key point in the discussion on the future.
(FR/transl.fl)