This year Father Christmas came. He came 24 hours late and only on 7 December but at least this year, the person who had been systematically snubbing them for so many years, did come. This time he came adorned with the features of Martin Schulz, the former President of the European Parliament who had become, that very day, the boss of the German Social Democrat Party. The President of the SPD took out a present from his sack that even the most optimistic Europeans were not expecting and at the same time, he even sent a poisoned chalice to Angela Merkel.
The SPD Congress grudgingly agreed to begin negotiations that would allow Germany a government without having to hold elections again and which would very likely provide the very nationalist and extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD), some rich pickings. The spirit of responsibility has therefore so far prevailed. Nonetheless, play is far from over at either domestic or European levels.
At a domestic level, one would have to be very shrewd to guarantee that the negotiations opened on Wednesday between representatives from the Christian Democrats, Bavarian Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats will lead to the constitution of coalition government. The hypothesis of a minority government with just the Conservatives in business remains perfectly possible, as long as the activists from the SPD demonstrate little appetite for another episode of government under the leadership of Angela Merkel.
That is why we need to partly understand the requirements formulated by Martin Schulz at a European level. It is logical that saying that he supports the creation of a European Finance Minister, “who puts a stop to a unfair tax competition" is definitely going to stir up a lot of trouble in a party that seeks to be the intransigent guarantor of good budgetary behaviour in Eurozone member states. Saying that the European Union, “cannot allow German European policy ‘à la Schäuble’ for another four years” is naturally, for Ms Merkel and her friends, nothing less than a provocation (see EUROPE 11922). Going from this to thinking of another grand coalition, is illusory and there is only one more step that one could be tempted to take.
Nonetheless, this poisoned chalice on the domestic scene is also, and above all, a magnificent present offered to all those who are not satisfied by a Europe restrained by the corset of national governments. By requesting that Germany agrees to begin working towards the creation of the United States of Europe by 2025, with its own constitution elaborated by a Convention involving, as indicated by Nathalie Steiwer, “the people and civil society”, Martin Schulz has not only thrown down the gauntlet to Angela Merkel to prove in practice the genuine nature and scope of her European commitment but it also provides “another bridge”, even longer than that of Emmanuel Macron, towards recognition that the status quo and ambiguity constantly cultivated by the states is no longer in season. What he means to the whole of Europe by his unexpected announcement is that the status quo is a deadly impasse for the European Union if its citizens do not find a way out of this situation extremely soon!
What should one think of some of the ideas of Mr Schulz? Well, it may be a question of the urgent need for tax and social harmonisation. Nurturing doubts when he suggests that countries that refuse to sign the Constitution will find themselves quite simply out the door, although they would remain members of the European Union. He obviously thinks that this European Constitution, like the Constitution of Philadelphia in the USA will only be ratified by three quarters of the current member states of the Union in order to enter into force, which would effectively be a good thing but this does not say anything at all at this stage with regard to what needs to be done with the “old" European Union that is still alive.
At this juncture, we should concentrate, however, on the wish expressed by Mr Schulz for a European Convention to be in charge of drafting this Constitution. This idea goes back to the “democratic" conventions advocated by President Macron, in an effort to give citizens a voice and on this basis, bring them closer to the Europe that is being built in their name. On reading a (very interesting) information report that has just been submitted by the European affairs committee at the French National Assembly, it appears that it is not yet the moment for them to build this themselves, as these citizens would see fit!
What does this report drawn up by Valérie Gomez-Bassac say? It says that the views provided by citizens should be very seriously taken into account. Therefore, the organisation of these conventions in the member states would be based on an “inter-state charter" whose “national steering committees" would ensure respect for these views. The goal would be, “to create a bottom up movement from citizens to representatives”, which would ultimately be involved in separating the wheat from the chaff. For example, Uwe Corsepius, an advisor to Angela Merkel on European questions, suggested that the Bundestag should be involved in these conventions, “given the proximity of MEPs to their co-citizens in their constituencies, as well as the status of Mr Wolfgang Schäuble, the current President of the Bundestag and a huge European in the eyes of many Germans". This is to say that the temptation to orchestrate the views of citizens will be significant in the majority of member states. If the author of this edifying report is to be believed, it is particularly the case in Hungary where… “the civil society organisations meeting on the ground” have diametrically opposed points of view.
The question now being posed is to establish whether, beyond the fine sounding speeches, what room for manoeuvre will really be granted to European citizens. This elected representative on behalf of the “French République En Marche Party” decrees that, “these democratic conventions will not be able to produce any changes to the founding treaties" before adding that, “it is not appropriate that the political priorities of European citizens that are taken into account lead to any modification of the treaties”. There you have it loud and clear in a debate that will be stifled from the very beginning and therefore pointless!
It would be laughable but we are obliged to take the pulse of the level of defiance from citizens towards their representatives and national and European elites and the kind of Europe being created for them. A resurge in nationalism is a consequence of this. Everything produced stems from the fact that, “the democracies remain national”, as the former President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, recently asserted, despite the fact that certain major competences were transferred to a European level a long time ago but without the transfer to this level enjoying the level of democratic legitimacy it required.
This is what the French MP and former brilliant MEP, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, very elegantly pointed out to his peers in the European affairs committee at the National Assembly: through the organisation of citizens' conventions, “We must help Europeans, our co-citizens and ourselves, to answer the following question: what must specifically be done at the level of Europe? Why do things have to be done at this level and not at national or global levels and what are these things? As long as people do not have a concrete idea of the appropriateness of the European level with regard to the problems in their daily lives, we will be trying to turn back the sea".
If we are to refrain from this futile task, we should stop trying to the restrict the views of citizens: we need to listen to their demands and their criticism. The film director and president of the European Cinema Academy, Wim Wenders, exclaimed, “We need to fill the European idea with dreams, utopias and joy”. What we really need is for the political world to give citizens a blank check so that they can find a way out of the current mindset as described by the Belgian essayist and historian, David Van Reybrouck, “There is a sort of distrust in the current political system. There is snobbery, elitism and a colonialism that is largely spread throughout the circles that possess power today. It is also based on fear and ignorance about what ordinary people are capable of doing” (Le Soir, 7 December).
The French economist, Bernard Barthalay writes that what we ultimately need is for citizens to be able to, “take the initiative of transgression, themselves, by writing, from city to city, their projects for the Constitution of a Republic of Europe”. He adds that this should also take place at “the demos where the states and parties are forced to consider the following dilemma: dissolve the people or free them from the fear of the United States of Europe”.
Michel Theys