*** PAUL J. J. WELFENS: An Accidental Brexit. New EU and Transatlantic Economic Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan (Springer Nature, 17 Tiergartenstrasse, D-69121 Heidelberg, P. O. Box 105280, RFA. Tel: (49-6221) 345-0 – fax: 345-4229 – Email: customerservice@springer.com – Internet: http://www.springer.com ). 2017, 447 pp. €35.69. ISBN 978-3-319-58270-2.
At an economic level what will Brexit mean and involve for the United Kingdom, Germany and France, as well as all the other European Union countries and, at a much broader level, for the world as a whole? In what way could the repercussions of this British “desertion” cause problems or indeed prove fatal to the Eurozone? What reforms are urgently required at a European level and in the Union member states to tackle the earthquake that Brexit will definitely provoke and the unprecedented global shockwaves created by the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House? These are some of the questions that this equally flamboyant and robust book tackle and to which the President of the European Institute for International Economic Relations at the University of Wuppertal brings a number of answers. The book also contains the implacable accusation levelled against certain political leaders, which one of his colleagues, Harold James (University of Princeton) does not hesitate to describe as being responsible for the, “worst deliberate economic policy mistake since the Great Depression”.
Paul Welfens is unrelenting in his criticism of the Cameron government. He quotes Sir Francis Bacon in his testimony to this end and who in the 16th century was already calling on his contemporaries to “carefully observe the facts and reality” before taking action, the complete opposite of the attitude adopted by the in the ministerial team led by David Cameron. This team preferred to conceal essential elements from the British Treasury study on the long-term benefits of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and the costs of a potential Brexit. As part of the author’s accusation, he highlights the fact that in the brochure sent out to all British citizens before the referendum on 23 June 2016, the Conservatives in power concealed crucial information about Brexit costing “a 10% income loss”. If this knowledge had been available, 52% of them would have voted to keep the country and the Union. According to Paul Welfens, this would totally obliterate the legitimacy of the vote and he reasonably asserts that, “It can be argued that a disorderly referendum should not be the basis for a historical political change”. He therefore considers that Westminster would have the very best reasons to ultimately overturn the “spurious result” embodied by “an artificial majority vote”.
The accusation made by this German economist, however, has a much broader focus. He therefore seeks to identify exactly what the macro-economic consequences of this decision made by British citizens will be in the medium term for their country (unsurprisingly, they will be negative) as well as the impact from it on the US and Europe. With regard to the former, the author argues that these consequences will not just be problematic due to Brexit in itself but many of the policies promoted by the Trump administration also run counter to 70 years of American history and which will bring this country and therefore the world away from “mercantilism” to a, “politico-economic ideology of the early eighteenth century that brought international conflicts through the obsession of many countries to all achieve a current account surplus which, of course, is logically impossible” - which is also borne out by the fact that that this German academic figure does not even spare… the Germany of Angela Merkel in his criticism. The book also includes many suggestions about the reforms the European Union should imperatively undertake if it wants to avoid collapse. The author energetically argues for a thoroughgoing rearrangement of the Eurozone so that it can become “an optimum currency area”. He also adds that Brexit, the presidency of Donald Trump and the rising power of China do not allow for any “wait and see” policy when it comes to implementing reforms.
In his conclusions, Paul Welfens again returns to the question of national referenda in a European context and calls on the Commission to put forward proposals so that this referenda in the future will guarantee minimum requirements regarding the quality of information provided to citizens. He is not wrong but this is not the most important question of all: it is the current national referenda right of veto that should be proscribed in the future given that it is this that ensures that a European citizen in one member state is not equal to European citizens in other member states. It would therefore be more propitious to create the groundwork for genuine “European” referenda in all Union or Eurozone countries. The only possibility of holding a “European” national referenda will therefore no longer be able to focus on the possible exit of a country. At this level and in this perspective, the United Kingdom would be irreproachable.
Michel Theys
*** SEAN VAN RAEPENBUSCH: Le contrôle juridictionnel dans l’Union européenne. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles (26 av. Paul Héger, B-1000 Brussels. Tel: (32-2) 6503799 – fax: 6503794 – Email: editions@ulb.ac.be – Internet: http://www.editions-universit é-bruxelles.be). J. Mégret series. 2018, 176 pp. €70. ISBN 978-2-8004-1634-2.
Within the heart of the European Union the rule of law is being ridden roughshod over even though we thought it was a European value that had been acquired long ago. It is, however, still provoking much polemic. Concealed behind a political power struggle pitting the European Commission against the Polish, Hungarian and Romanian governments and, below the surface, the Europe of freedoms under threat from illiberal temptations, the actual legal situation as it stands, as pointed out by Sean Van Raepenbusch, is that the “Union is based on the rule of law”. The former President of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal provides a 400 long page dissection of the “very comprehensive” system the Union has to ensure that, “neither its member states or institutions escape from the control of ensuring the compliance of their laws with the basic Constitutional Charter constituting the treaties”. The rule of law is more than a value in itself and it is indeed an imperative underpinning the very existence of the Union and the states united in respect for the same rules. The author of this book provides an explanation regarding the Court of Justice of the European Union (part I), the principles governing the way in which it is made up, the manner in which it operates and its competencies (part II and III), as well as the procedure (part IV) and ways to appeal (part V) in Union courts. This is the second volume on the “legal order of the Union and European disputes” and at any other time would have been relegated to the obscure corners of the library for legal practitioners alone. The European judicial system has, nonetheless, managed to confront the frosty reception given to it by member states and the failed attempts by the Commission to prevent Warsaw dismissing the rule of law and the separation of powers. The European Court of Justice was requested by the Irish Supreme Court as part of a referral - which is discussed at length in this book -and delivered a major blow to the controversial legal reforms from the Polish conservatives in the PiS, by recognising the right of the other member states to refuse implementation of a European arrest warrant issued by a legal system that they consider devoid of any independence. It will be up to the national courts to assess whether the Polish legal system has managed to settle this delecate question. The book by Sean Van Raepenbusch explains that this involves a “major characteristic of the Union's jurisdictional system”, namely, that “the national courts have a remit in common law for ensuring respect for European law”. This is indeed the crux of the matter because, just as the Commission as guardian of the treaties has repeatedly pointed out to anyone willing to listen, a politicised Polish judicial system is causing a breach in the web of European systems that have been woven together to preserve the Union, its fundamental values and legislation. (MU)
*** SUSANNA VERNI, ANTONIS KONTIS (editors): L’intégration européenne. Les crises multiples et les défis du futur : volume honorifique pour Panagiotis Ioakimidis. Editions Papazisi (2 rue Nikitara, GR-10678 Athens. Tel: (30-210) 3822496 – fax: 3809020 – Email: papazisi@otenet.gr – Internet: http://www.papazisi.gr ). 2018, 872 pp. €53. ISBN 978-960-02-3355-1.
In this volume, 41 eminent figures from the Greek scientific community of European studies pay homage to Panagiotis Ioakimidis, the lucid visionary who fought untiringly in the service of a united Europe. Over the period of 40 years as a Professor at the faculty of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Athens, as well as an ambassador, this intellectual made a very active contribution to the formulation of a national strategy an lightening training for European citizens in Greece. This book is edited by Susana Verni and Antonis Kontis, who are also lecturers at the University of Athens and in it their homage particularly focuses on extremely critical phase of European integration over the past few years. The first part of the book involves an analysis of the multifold crises affecting European Union currently, whether they are institutional (for example, involving the sovereignty and management of the crises themselves and new forms of governance), economic (such as the European social model that is under threat and the worsening of regional disparities…) and external (involving the Union's action on the international scene, bilateral relations, enlargement and neighbourhood policy). Finally, the last section of the book involves these national experts examining the question of the Europeanisation of Greece and the evolution of this process during the crisis. In addition to the homage provided, the book also includes an essential guide for understanding the multifaceted dilemmas confronting the European Union today, as well as the future prospects of the integration process that are currently taking shape. (AKa)
*** Futuribles. L’anticipation au service de l’action. Futuribles Sarl (47 rue de Babylone, F-75007 Paris. Tel: (33-1) 53633770 – fax: 42226554 – Email revue@futuribles.com – Internet: http://www.futuribles.com ). September-October 2018, No. 426, 128 pp. €22. Annual subscription: €115. ISBN 978-2-84387-439-0.
This edition of the French perspectives journal edited by Hugues de Jouvenel draws attention to 3 subjects that look like they will turn out to be decisive in the future, namely, i) artificial intelligence, which is obviously going to “provide unprecedented opportunities and risks”; ii) involvement of businesses and the construction of the common good; iii) the rise in populism throughout the world and of which the European Union has not been spared either. On the latter theme, Henri Wallard, the director-general of Ipsos, launches a cooperative action between Futuribles and this polling company by seeking to explain the different profiles covered by what has become “a catch all term covering a variety of very different content”. After having identified the “common links” between the different forms populism (that are particularly mobilising “the most pessimistic of electorates about their futures and possible marginalisation”, this expert demonstrates that “there is no homogenous populism in Europe” (he also explains that there is no homogenous phenomena at a global level either) in light of the favourite themes advocated by populists in Italy) (“anti-immigrant rhetoric”), in the US (where Donald Trump is taken advantage of identity and nativist feelings that have emerged from “to the most migrant-hostile voters and those most inclined to feel dispossessed of their identities”) and the United Kingdom where identity responses have manifested themselves and where “populism” cannot be explained by Brexit alone. In addition to this variety, there are many other different forms and which, according to Henri Wallard, are a threat that we could hope would disappear if the economic recovery were sufficiently robust. In his customary “European column”, Jean-François Drevet suggests that national governments themselves have contributed to the expansion of populism within the Union and that this is Europe “sick from its member states”. This former Commission official argues that tackling fiscal dumping and managing illegal immigration and protectionism at European level would be the most efficient way of fighting at a national level and the best way of pulling up the carpet from beneath the feet of the populists and other extremists. (MT)
*** 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 ). 2018, No. 1. 64 pp.. Annual subscription: €15 / Internet €8.
This issue of the well-known federalist journal tackles a variety of issues from the carbon tax (in the editorial Alberto Majocchi and Antonio Padoa-Schioppa say that it is crucial for ensuring “a brighter future” for the Union and the world as a whole) to the Europe of defence (the journal contains the text of a speech on the subject made by High Representative Federica Mogherini to the Europe of defence). The journal also contains articles on the European budgets; the crisis of European social democracy; globalisation and the stabilising role that the Union could play in this context; European federalism confronting the independence movement in Catalonia and the legacy of Altiero Spinelli, Albert Camus and Peter Sutherland. The opinion of Bruno Boissière is also highlighted and according to which Jean-Claude Juncker was right to describe the European Parliament as “ridiculous" for having boycotted the Parliament during the presentation of the Maltese Presidency of the Council's results. (PBo)