*** DANIELLE AUROI: Union européenne: l’urgence du long terme. Commission des Affaires européennes de l'Assemblée nationale (Boutique de l'Assemblée nationale, 7 rue Aristide-Briand, F-75007 Paris. Internet: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr ). "Rapport d'information de l'Assemblée nationale" series, No. 4572. 2017, 145 pp, €5. ISBN 978-2-11-144079-1.
The European affairs committee of the French National Assembly had the excellent idea of organising from October to January a series of hearings on the future of the European Union. As its chair, Danielle Auroi, writes in this newsletter giving an account of the hearings, the aim ‘was to hear and quiz intellectuals and researchers representing a plurality of viewpoints that are sometimes not given enough of a voice in the classical European public debate.’
This aim has been perfectly reached given the freedom of thought demonstrated by the individuals given a hearing: former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta, who is now president of the Jacques Delors Institute–Notre Europe, and who admitted that ‘giving governments a predominant role (in the Union) does not make Europe take the right path,’ and the Union should stop being only a ‘synonym for the economy, finance and the euro’; Dutch historian and philosopher Luuk Van Middelaar, who believes quite the opposite, that the European Council is and should remain ‘the principal knot’ in a dispersed executive; Prof. Lequesne, for whom the French political leaders (but are they the only ones?) ‘tend to hide European issues that get managed by specialists without democratic control’; former Director General of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service Jean-Claude Piris, who observes that the ‘vagaries and ambiguity’ still characterising its ‘ends’ inevitably give rise to mistrust among citizens when ‘small federal steps’ are required ‘in terms of the euro’; Antoine Vauchez, director of the Centre Européen de Sociologie et de Science Politique (CNRS), asks ‘whether a small democratisation treaty is needed’; Thierry Chopin, director of studies at the Robert Schuman Foundation, who among other comments points out that ‘the question of European identity has not been taken into account,’ and consequently ‘this area left vacant has been occupied for a number of years by populist and/or extremist parties’; Jean-François Jamet, lecturer at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris, who calls for the emergence of a ‘kingly Europe,’ in other words ‘a Europe that reinforces the sovereignty of public authority, whether exercised at national or European level’; philosopher Etienne Balibar, who hopes the future of Europe will be the focus of the presidential elections in France and for it to be accepted that ‘citizens of other European nations who share our concerns have the right of expression in our country and to formulate their own expectations’; Daniela Schwarzer, director of the German Institute of International Relations, who says that ‘in the absence of reform, there is a high risk of the eurozone bursting apart’, adding that in her view Berlin should begin ‘considering the question of the negative effects of (German) national policy on the European economy’; and finally, Michel Theys in his position as editorialist at Agence Europe.
Are all the ideas expressed in the series of hearings pertinent? Probably not all of them, but many are interesting and constructive, and all of them have the priceless merit of considering the future of Europe outside the political and diplomatic circles where Europe’s destiny plays out in a closed container under the strict constraints of national straitjackets. This is therefore a useful report that would without any doubt justify this French parliamentary initiative being imitated in other member states of the Union. Moreover, why wouldn’t Danielle Auroi and her peers who are open to the idea play with the idea of including in the exercise a meeting of all the consulted individuals at European level in the presence of competent parliamentarians from national and European parliaments? Wouldn’t this also be a prefiguration of a citizens’ assembly or even a Citizens’ Convention? Pierre Bouvier
*** The Federalist Debate. Papers on Federalism in Europe and the World. The Einstein Center for International Studies (26 via Schina, I-10144 Torino. Tel/Fax: (+39-011) 4732843 – Email: info@federalist-debate.org – Internet: http://www.federalist-debate.org ). 2016, No. 3, 64 pp. Annual subscription: €15 / Internet: €8.
This issue of an always very rich federalist publication contains five contributions on Brexit and its consequences. The first one is the editorial, in which Lucio Levi considers Brexit in the light of the risks of the Union’s disintegration that might result from it. This big name in Italian federalism slams national governments, guilty of going as far as selling off to the lowest bidder the concept of an ever narrower union to please David Cameron ahead of the referendum, Levi seeing these governments as more than ever ‘living in the past,’ thus giving burning topicality to this warning from the two authors of the Ventotene Manifesto: ‘If tomorrow the struggle were to remain restricted within traditional national boundaries, it would be difficult to avoid the old contradictions’ that led to the two World Wars last century. Spinelli and Rossi then warned that the Reactionary forces would then find good reason to fight for the ‘restoration of the nation State’ by appealing to a ‘patriotic feelings,’ all of which Le Pen, Orban, Farage and their ilk are currently doing. Therefore, says the publication’s editor, it is extremely urgent for the European Union to cease ‘to define itself as the first supranational democracy in history if it is unable to answer the concern of its citizens,’ be it unemployment, terrorism or housing refugees. Paolo Ponzano, former high-ranking official at the European Commission, considers how the Union, without rushing into a reform of the treaties, could react positively to the departure of the twenty-eighth member state, notably inviting it to distance itself from austerity policies and, on the contrary, to take the risk of displeasing some capital cities by working in favour of adopting a convincing social package. The other contributions look at the practical modalities of implementing the article in the United Kingdom and the European Union, the rise of nationalism and the possibility of using a European citizenship separated off from national citizenship to help European officials holding British nationality. (MT)
*** JEAN-FRANCIS BILLION, JEAN-LUC PREVEL: Le Manifeste de Ventotene. Projet d’un Manifeste et autres textes (1941-1947). Presse fédéraliste (c/o Maison de l'Europe et des Européens, 242 rue Duguesclin, F-69003 Lyon. Internet: http://www.pressefederaliste.eu ). ‘Textes fédéralistes’ series, No. 14. 2017, 343 pp, €25. ISBN 978-2-9558710-2-7.
Longstanding French federalists with unwavering enthusiasm, Jean-Francis Billion and Jean-Luc Prevel examine in these pages the Manifesto drawn up by Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi when, in 1941, they were relegated to the island of Ventotene by the Italian fascist regime. As far as the authors are concerned, this is not simply an act of remembrance because the best-known document of the Resistance ‘illustrates the gap between the political values of liberalism, socialism and democracy and the strategic choices made by national political classes.’ In this epoch in which nationalist posturing is flourishing again along with calls for a return to national sovereignty, it is highly topical and gives good reasons for standing up to the old demons. To this historical appeal for a ‘free and united Europe,’ the compliers add other enlightening documents, such as the preface by Eugenio Colorni to the 1944 edition of the Manifesto, an introduction to Altiero Spinelli by Lucio Levi, and various documents written by Spinelli himself between 1942 and 1947. (MT)
*** Dokumente / Documents. Zeitschrift für den deutsch-französischen Dialog / Revue du dialogue franco-allemand. Verlag Dokumente (1 j Birker Strasse, D-53797 Lohmar. Tel: (49-2246) 9499220 – Fax: 9499222 – Email: aboservice@dokumente-documents.info – Internet: http://www.dokumente-documents.info ). 2016, No. 4, €7. Subscription: €18.90.
A bilingual review launched at the end of the Second World War by Jesuit Jean du Riveau to help French and Germans learn to understand each other better and enter dialogue in order to build a useful partnership for either side, includes in this issue a number of contributions on Brexit and the potential consequences of the choice of British citizens to withdraw to their island. Landry Charrier, senior lecturer at Université Blaise Pascal in Clermont-Ferrand, draws the conclusion, for example, that it is a matter of urgency to ‘reawaken the spirit of Ventotene’ and, therefore, manage to bypass national political frameworks, as urged by Spinelli and Rossi. Prof. Heinz Kleger (Potsdam University) feels that the time has come, more than ever, not to protect the European Union from its citizens, but to convince them of the relevance of ‘the European idea within the framework of a direct democracy.’ Other contributions look at the options available to the Union to react, also looking at the prospects for a Defence Europe, various aspects specific to France and Germany’s relationships with Great Britain, and finally, former secretary general of the European People’s Party, Thomas Jansen, providing a reflection on the hypothesis of a rapprochement between the European Union and Russia. Other subjects addressed in this very rich and eclectic issue include a special issue on the vitality of the French and German languages, and reference to a society debate in Germany generated by a film asking whether a plane hijacked with 164 passengers on board can be shot down because the terrorist hijackers want to bring it down on a stadium where 70,000 people are watching a football match. (MT)
*** LOUKAS TSOUKALIS: Défendre l'Europe. Le projet européen peut-il être sauvé et, si oui, sous quelle forme ? Editions Papadopoulos (9 Kapodistriou, GR-14452 Metamorphosi, Greece. Tel: (30-210) 2846074-5 – Fax: 2817127 – Email: info@epbooks.gr – Internet: http://www.epbooks.gr ). 2016, 336 pp, €16.99. ΙSBN 978-960-569-641-2.
Facing a raft of crises in recent years (eurozone, refugees, Brexit), the European Union is trying with enormous difficulties and limited success to preserve its fragile unity. While the revolutionary experience that was European integration has not ceased to see its members, competencies and responsibilities increasing, its decision-centre remains weak, as does its political legitimacy, while the economic gaps between and within member states grow wider. Starting from the observation that the Union remains a highly complex collective, political and economic entity, Prof. Tsoukalis (Athens University), president of the Greek Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, draws up in these pages a balance sheet of European unification by analysing the challenges the European Union is facing today and sketching out ways of solving them. In a lively style and a language accessible to the greatest number, the man who also lecturers at the College of Europe also unravels the role occupied by Greece in this venture. In the introduction, he draws an instructive parallel between the results of the British referendum and the recent presidential election in the United States. (AKa)
*** COSTAS SIMITIS: Y a-t-il une solution ? Une discussion avec Yannis Pretenderis. Editions Polis (33 Eolou, GR-10551 Athènes. Tél.: (30-210) 3643382 – fax: 3636501 – Courriel: info@polis-ed.gr – Internet: http://www.polis-ed.gr ). 2016, 288 p., 14 €. ISBN 978-960-435-539-6.
With the never-ending deluge of information poured out by the media, Greek citizens usually feel they are drowning in a sea of enigmas that prevent them from understanding where the country is heading and, above all, their own personal fate. To settle the debt problem, as the Tsipras government has promised and the European partners are demanding for 2018, what recipes are up the sleeve for Greek citizens? Will they be promised new taxes? New pension schemes? New reductions in income? And who is one to believe – those who assure citizens that improvements in the situation are around the corner or those on the contrary who say things will be grim for the indefinite future and certainly for a very long time? It is the causes of this confusion and uncertainties that former prime minister Costas Simitis (1996-2004) looks at in this book of interviews with economist Yannis Pretenderis, who is a very well-known journalist in Greece. For the PASOK dignitary, it is only to be expected that people don’t understand the terms of the game of which they are the victims because those dealing with these matters don’t have much more certainty or assurances. In May of last year, Eurogroup itself recognised that the ‘considerable degree of uncertainty in terms of macroeconomic developments in Greece’ meant that it ‘couldn’t talk about what would happen in the future.’ So how could it be possible for the people to do so? Can a solution be envisaged in this context? It is to the task of verifying this that the two men set themselves in a lively, serious dialogue, but accessible to the widest number, seeking to help the current problems be better understood. Their profound conviction is that the problems can only be solved if properly informed citizens can forge an accurate opinion and judgement about them. (AKa)
*** PIERMARIO MATTERA: Dialogues avec mon Père. Edilivre (175 Bld Anatole France, F-93200 Saint Denis. Tel: (33-1) 41621440 – Fax: 41621450 – Email: client@edilivre.com – Internet: http://www.edilivre.com ). 2017, 52 pp, €8.50. ISBN 978-2-414-04070-4.
Alfonso Mattera was a recognised and respected high official at the European Commission. This artisan of the European Single Market – on which subject he lectured at the European College in Parma and the College of Europe in Bruges, and which since 1991 he decrypted and analysed for the Revue du Marché Unique Européen that later became the Revue du Droit de l’Union Européenne – died suddenly last summer. In this short poetic journal, a casket of heartbreaking, desperate states of being, his son Piermario expresses his pain at this loss, such as in this note written on 12 October 2016: ‘And all of a sudden, in the implausibility of death, I knew that there wasn’t any Paradise, or Hell or Purgatory, but only what has been and what will no longer be…’ (MT)