The masks slip a little more every day and confront us with the horror of the world taking shape before our eyes. It is now impossible not to see the political void, a black hole swallowing up the principles and values that the West, Europe leading the way, claimed to embody. Out of the ruins of two world wars that it spawned, the consequence of unbridled nationalism, Europe built an inspired model to bring peace to relations between sovereign states. Today it is difficult to deny the obvious: sovereign state mania is gaining ground throughout the European Union. Why should this be so?
Before answering that question of now vital importance for each and every citizen of Europe, let us make a detour via Paris where, on 6 and 7 October, celebrations were held to mark the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Notre Europe association, set up by Jacques Delors on his leaving office at the Commission. Since then, it has become the Jacques Delors Institute, which has allowed some to argue shamelessly that their Europe has little in common with the prevailing spirit of the time Notre Europe saw the light of day. And what did Manuel Valls say on that occasion? That we had to “say no to the United States of Europe that Victor Hugo dreamed of”! That we had, too, to believe “in nations, which are a beacon in this fast-changing world”, though he acknowledged that, “of course, in the face of the great nations emerging or returning to the global stage, Europeans will be weaker without a powerful Union”. That speaks volumes for the consistency of thought of François Hollande’s prime minister, which owes more to Gaullist than to Socialist ideas. At least the current tenant of the Elysée Palace stated, at the same event, that the federation of nation states proposed in his day by Jacques Delors was “a good way of talking about a project that aimed to unite Europeans while respecting the fabric of societies and bringing peoples together without their having to give up what made them different”. “Federation of nation states” contains the word federation, proving that, no, Victor Hugo was not completely mad. Quite the opposite!
Quite the opposite, indeed, no matter what Jean-Claude Juncker might think. Perhaps because he was in the French capital where the F-word would seem to have become as unacceptable as it was previously in London, Mr Juncker fell into line with those who are stripping out the European ideal. What he said was, quite simply, appalling. “We must stop talking about a United States of Europe. That will never happen. We cannot mislead citizens. The peoples don’t want it. They like what’s close at hand, their region, the diversity of national identities”. Is it not misleading citizens to state that something will never happen? And which people has been asked to say whether or not it wanted a United States of Europe and delivered a resounding “no”? None! None, because none of the leaders of the countries of the EU has ever allowed this question to be put to citizens. Some have been asked whether they want their country to be part of Europe: the Norwegians said no, all the others, without exception, said yes. For everything else, the people of Europe have been condemned to remain silent. When the president of the Commission states that “Europe cannot be built against the will of nations”, he is lying: nations are not just those who make up the executives – and parliamentary representatives are barely consulted more on this issue than the person in the street. On the European stage, then, ordinary citizens are simply voiceless puppets into whose mouths the members of the European Council and those under obligation to them in government put their words, their truth, not that of the citizens themselves!
Now we are coming to the nub of the matter. Are European citizens happy with the Europe that is being built in their name? Absolutely not! To them, this Europe is the Europe of the national political classes that are becoming ever more discredited almost everywhere in Europe. It is the Europe of those who stand to gain, both out of Europe and out of globalisation. Even though his assessment of the fate of the euro may very well demonstrate that one may win a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences without necessarily being an accurate forecaster, is Joseph Stigler wrong when he talks about “that anger of so many of our citizens, that these policies, financial market liberalisation, or globalisation in general, have left large fractions of our population behind” both in Europe and in the United States? Is he mistaken when he asks: “Will the European Union read the message (of Brexit) and say ‘look, we have not convinced the citizens of the European Union that we are delivering benefits and everybody receives these benefits and that’s leading to prosperity’”?
It would seem they will not. This is not the time for doubt among the princes who govern Europe and its countries. And so, populism gains a little more ground every day. Where a Hugo, a Monnet or a Kennedy is needed to launch a ground-breaking, visionary, aspirational project that can inspire the people, the only voices to be heard are those of the advocates of the status quo. They are creating a breeding ground for populists and nationalistic extremists. Do they realise it? Michel Theys