The ECSC treaty, which entered into force for 50 years to run from July 1952, was considered by orthodox liberals to be too interventionist, like the French Bureau du Plan (headed up by Monnet) scaled up to the European level as its executive authority (and initially headed up by one and the same Monnet). This treaty stemmed from a formal declaration by Robert Schuman, the preparation of which was, “as if by accident”, shrouded in the greatest secrecy.
Then came the EEC treaty which was, despite its patchwork nature (competition policy, social fund), liberal in inspiration and enjoying far greater scope. The gradual completion of the single market was a matter of no doubt in Marxist circles: a new phase in the development of international capitalism was underway and, to pro-Soviet minds, it was furthermore the Trojan horse of American imperialism and an instrument of war against the USSR. Besides, had Monnet himself not been at the service of the government of the United States? The Europe of the merchants was in Brussels, that of the mind in Strasbourg, where the competing institution has its seat. This vision was lent extra credibility when the United Kingdom joined. It enjoyed much success until the end of the 1980s, when the populations living in the Soviet orbit began to rebel and turn to the West. On top of this, the progress made by the ‘Delors’ Commission (doubling the structural funds, social measures, cultural actions, rescuing European cinema from American omnipotence, the Erasmus programme, research policy, etc...) did not tend to chime with the caricature of Europe being controlled by the puppet masters of Big Capital.
The new founding treaty, which was signed in Maastricht, offered a more balanced image of a Europe pursuing non-trade-related objectives, for instance with the introduction of European citizenship and democratisation that would be bolstered by subsequent treaties, in favour of the Parliament. It would be hard to paint the creation of the euro, which would rival the dollar, as evidence of Europe turning into a vassal state.
During the debate on the constitutional treaty, some circles pushed the idea of a Europe in thrall to the Vatican. Had Christian democracy not been at the forefront of European construction? Did it not dream of bringing back Christianity? Was the Commission’s dialogue with the Churches not evidence of this? Had the Opus Dei not infiltrated every corner of the institutional system? The balanced text that became the Lisbon Treaty would appease minds and the values defended, principally by the Parliament, were those of a properly understood secularism. The first step taken towards the canonisation of Robert Schuman (June 2021) is now the only thing that believers in some kind of clerical conspiracy can point to.
Subsequently, the European Union was seen as the major player in globalisation, to the detriment to our soils, traditions and standards of living. The most overused symbol of this was the influence of migrants, which peaked memorably in 2015. The detestable narrative of Nigel Farage, involving hordes of human beings all heading for the poor little United Kingdom, was undoubtably a decisive element to tip the balance in favour of Brexit in the vote of June 2016.
There were also Jacobin nationalists – Michel Debré was an early example, in the 1960s – who firmly believed that European integration was the antechamber of the dismantling of the States. Was regional policy not clear proof of this? Were not the creation of the European Committee of the Regions and support for minority languages further evidence? It took the Catalan business, in which the Commission steadfastly declined to get involved, to spike this fallacious idea.
Current events have given conspiracy theorists more than a little shot in the arm. How much stupidity have we read and heard about COVID-19 vaccinations! Member states were in the front line and took the brunt of it, but the Union did not get out unscathed.
Now, finally, we have a conspiracy the denunciation of which strikes at the very heart of the Union! Basically, the EU has decided to attack the sovereignty of the member states, particularly targeting the latest arrivals, most specifically the two largest. The two main players in this conspiracy are the Commission and the Court of Justice of the EU, institutions entirely lacking any democratic legitimacy. The texts denouncing it are a judgment of the Constitutional Court of Poland, which has already been discussed in this column, and, particularly, a letter sent on 18 October (see EUROPE 12814/5) by the Polish Prime Minister to his peers and also to the Presidents of the European Council, Commission and Parliament (an order which deviates from that of article 13 TEU). In the body of the text, no mention is made of the Parliament and the author contends that the will of the citizens of the European countries is expressed through their respective states.
Let us see what Morawiecki put in his letter. To start with, a brief paragraph serves to reassure his correspondents of the continued loyalty of Poland, which respects European law and “recognises its primacy over national laws, pursuant to all our obligations under the Treaty on European Union”.
This is followed by a denunciation and a warning: “at the same time, however, I want to make you concerned – and draw your attention to a dangerous phenomenon that threatens the future of our Union. We ought to be anxious about the gradual transformation of the Union into an entity that would cease to be an alliance of free, equal and sovereign states, and instead become a single, centrally managed organism, run by institutions deprived of democratic control by the citizens of European countries. If we do not stop this phenomenon, all will feel its negative effects. Today it may concern just one country – tomorrow, under a different pretext, another”.
The letter then goes on to dwell at length on the limits of the powers conferred by the treaties and the fundamental role of the constitutional courts of the member states. The writer defends that of his own country, which, he argues, has done nothing that other courts of other states have not done in the past. He reiterates that the “supreme authority in the Republic of Poland belongs to the nation” and argues that the primacy of the European Court of Justice leads to internal violations of the Polish Constitution and of the rulings of its constitutional court, leading to “unimaginable legal chaos”.
Then he returns to his theme: “no sovereign state can agree to such an interpretation. Accepting it would effectively translate into the European Union ceasing to be a union of free, equal and sovereign countries. Such a fait accompli approach would transform the European Union into a centrally managed state organism, whose institutions can force whatever they want within its ‘provinces’, regardless of any legal basis”. That’s what you call hammering your point home. But it does not stop there: “today we are dealing with a very dangerous phenomenon whereby various European Union institutions usurp powers they do not have under the Treaties and impose their will on member states per fas et nefas”. This is a barely concealed reference to the regulation on conditionality which Poland considers, wrongly, to have no basis in law.
The theme then appears for the third time, stressing the lack of democratic control of the institutions (the Parliament will appreciate that) then, a bit later, a fourth time. The Polish Prime Minister appeals for a “return to [these] sources”, lest the Union become a “collection of better and worse countries”. Then he issues a threat of his own: “the language of financial blackmail, punishment, ‘starving’ of unsubordinated states, undemocratic and centralist pressures do not have a place in European politics”. At no point does he make any reference to the value of the independence of the judiciary, even though this has been a central point of the conflict for several years.
By way of conclusion, he refers to Jean Monnet and the other Fathers of Europe, praising their courage to face reality. If the reader did not know any better, he or she might feel that their true heirs are now in power in Poland.
This repetitive and polemic text has something of the flavour of a political manifesto. To nobody’s surprise, it received Hungary’s support in the Council the next day (see EUROPE 12815/1). It also appealed greatly to the simplistic mind of Marine Le Pen, candidate for the Presidency of the French Republic, who immediately adopted it for use in her own nationalistic battle. On 22 October, she met Morawiecki in Brussels and confirmed plans for a new far-right political group at the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12818/28).
On 19 October, the head of the Polish government appeared at a hearing before the very Parliament he had not deemed worthy of mention in his letter (see EUROPE 12815/3). Although he considerably overran his allocated time to address the floor, this was not long enough to win over the MEPs. Two days later, they voted by a majority in favour of a resolution condemning the judgment of the Polish constitutional court, which they consider to be illegitimate, and calling for financial penalties (see EUROPE 12817/5). The Commission, furthermore, reiterated the instruments at its disposal, but is prevaricating again, much to the irritation of the Parliament, which is moving in the direction of putting the matter before the Court (see EUROPE 12816/2).
Morawiecki was highly unlikely to have been in any illusions as to his chances of talking round the Parliament, Commission and Court, but the real purpose of his letter was to secure further allies in the European Council. The Conclusions of the meeting of 21 and 22 October made no reference to Poland’s coup de force, even though a two-hour debate took place; the information available came mainly from anonymous ‘diplomatic sources’ and statements made by various leaders (see EUROPE 12816/2, EUROPE 12817/2 and EUROPE 12818/3). The President of the European Council, clearly keen to avoid pile-ons like the ones against Viktor Orbán in June (see EUROPE 12748/1), spoke of “political dialogue” that would be continued. The Commission, which has competence in the matter, received the backing of the majority of leaders. How big a majority?
The debate has left no written traces. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Polish authorities scored a few points, in which case, in a matter that is existential for the Union, the European Council would be able to smooth things over. And, helped by conspiracy theorists, the fatal idea would be transmitted to more gullible minds, throughout Europe.
Renaud Denuit