A positive example. It's not every day that we have the chance to speak about a book and a press conference that are as lively and as positive for European unity! I am referring to the work For Europe! by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Guy Verhofstadt, and its presentation to public opinion. The tone is a change from the learned tomes that discourage reading, and everyone can understand its objective - federal Europe.
Here are a few examples: “Europe is becoming more and more like a historical monument. A marginalised continent which is fighting for survival in a new era and a new world” or “Europe no longer plays any significant role”. Whose fault is that? It's the fault of “the narrow-minded conception of sovereignty” by which the member states have “cut the Treaties off from our flag and our anthem”. These phrases introduce the analysis - in some years' time, the club of the richest countries in the world, the famous G8, will be composed of the United States, China, India, Japan, Brazil, Russia, Mexico and Indonesia, and “no European country will be part of it. The aberration is that unified Europe would together be the most powerful and the richest in the world” (our translation from the French version of the book).
Mr Verhofstadt has described the way to take - for the 2014 European elections he advocates a grand alliance which would be a third force alongside the EPP and the Socialists. The renewed European Parliament would be proclaimed a constituent Assembly and would work on fundamental European law which would then be submitted to citizens by a referendum. He considers, and he has written, that “the postnational federal Europe is far from a mirage - it's a real political project”. The European federal State would have a European tax, a European budget worthy of its name, a defence, and a seat at the UN Security Council.
Just a simple failing. What's the failing with this project? That's simple - it's not realistic. It would raise a great amount of perplexity and hesitation even among those who, in principle, are in favour of it. Here's an example: French readers have chosen the Left, while the majority in Brussels (European Parliament, ministerial Councils, the European Council) are centre-Right. The French voice would become very weak in the federal Europe. This comment is valid for any member state. Sharing national sovereignty in the European context is necessary - eliminating it would raise great reluctance.
The Delors formula. I remain persuaded, then, that the Jacques Delors formula - Federation of nation states - is more suitable for Europe. This column has already covered the subject on several occasions. Chance would have it that the most qualified person to explain it gave a summary just this Tuesday on the nature, objectives and functioning of this formula. I am talking about Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul, who has already dedicated a book to this subject. She reaffirms that the Delors formula “strengthens the efficiency and legitimacy of collective action, while encouraging cultural diversity and using the richness of the plurality of the member countries”. From the political point of view, this solution “strengthens the dialogue between European democracy and national democracies. (…) We have done too much institutional DIY, which the citizens can't make head or tail of and which is sometimes counter-productive in relation to the objectives”.
Necessary improvments. Mme Ricard-Nihoul says that since the 1990s Jacques Delors has shown and explained that “engagement in the European construction was not incompatible with the attachment of the citizens to their State, their nation and their culture”. In the EU, the concept of federation is particular “in view of the history and the political weight of the States which compose it”. The Community method has laid the basis for the system and it must be strengthened and improved: “The Council still often votes by unanimity, the European Parliament is not involved in all the decisions, the Commission sometimes considers itself deprived of its power of initiative through recourse to the intergovernmental.” These aspects must be improved and the Community budget must be strengthened as the European level is the appropriate one for transnational projects in industry, energy and transport. What is more, the institutional system must be completed - by merging the president of the Council with the president of the Commission, for example.
The Federation of nation states formula has literally been taken up by the president of the European Commission, but with a fundamental difference - Mr Barroso rejects in practice the idea of a two-speed Europe (“There is only one EU. One Commission. One Parliament”), while Jacques Delors stresses “the need for differentiation to let factors of dynamism come into play in the domains of the euro, Schengen and perhaps defence” (our translation throughout). I believe that Jacques Delors is right if we want to avoid one or other member state being able to block tomorrow's progress. (FR/transl.fl)