05 November 2018

Paul N. Goldschmidt: The stakes of the forthcoming European Parliamentary elections

Goldschmidt writes that, if the campaign is conducted properly, a significant majority would endorse further accelerated European integration. But failing to take a brave step ensures in the long run the complete capitulation of the Europhiles leading inevitably to the dismantling of the Union.

[...]forthcoming European parliamentary elections. Indeed, the new assembly may yield a completely new configuration, ending the long term power sharing agreement between the two dominant parties (PPE and S & D) who may lose their absolute majority.

 
A first question is to determine whether a third “centrist” force, represented jointly or separately by the ALDE, the representatives of Macron’s LREM movement and the Ecologists will be the “king makers” or whether the representation of populist parties - both on the left and right – will be able to block or interfere sufficiently with the normal parliamentary agenda to further discredit the Union in the eyes of its citizens?
 
Even if the expected progress of Eurosceptic forces is minimized by some analysts, the fact that in nearly all Member States the national-populist parties are progressing and are participating in – or even leading – governments, makes it a near certainty that they will significantly increase their representation in the next EP.
 
But what may constitute the biggest danger is the manipulation by stealth of the purpose of the vote, by transforming it – without adequate notice and preparation and as intended by Steve Banon and his followers – into a referendum offering a choice between an “intergovernmental” Europe in which each Member State recovers its full sovereignty and an EU to which full sovereignty is transferred in a number of areas more efficiently managed at Union level.
 
Forecasting the result is hazardous, especially if the question is not dealt with openly and deliberately, letting the current respective positions confront each other by default.
 
The message conveyed by the ‘Eurosceptic” camp is clear and even simplistic, though it smothers under the carpet the underlying realties implied by the dismantling of the €, the introduction even temporarily of exchange controls, the reestablishment of internal border controls, the end of the single market, etc.(Somewhat similar to the misrepresentations made by “Brexeteers” to the British electorate).
 
In the camp of the “Europhiles”, the message is totally blurred and confused to the point of becoming totally incomprehensible to the citizen; consequently it pushes the elector either to abstain or to give a chance to the other side whose program - though untested – constitutes an alternative to the endless soul searching, blockages and a culture of dubious compromises that has characterized the EU since the introduction of the € going back 19 years and the enlargement in 2004-7.
 
One should, however, point out that the unity of the Eurosceptics is a pure façade as they only stand together “against” the EU but offer as only alternative a total withdrawal to within their respective national borders. This recipe must inevitably lead to the “vassalization” of the 27 States concerned, none of them being capable of standing up to countries such as the United States, China, Russia, etc. or to challenge the power of the large multinational corporations that only a strong political power is able to control.[...]

As was recently expressed by the MEP Alain Lamassoure, “the maturity of the European citizen is far ahead of that of the politicians that purport to represent them in this debate”. Indeed, it should not prove too difficult to convince the citizens of the absolute necessity to manage certain matters collectively such as:
-  defense and therefor, for coherence sake, foreign policy,
-  the environment (climate does not stop at borders),
- immigration and therefor a common policing of the external borders of the Union (if one wishes to avoid reinstating internal borders),
- the currency; the € is an example of shared sovereignty but not yet fully implemented and therefor remains vulnerable. Etc.
 
On the other hand, transferring these competencies to the Union faces strenuous opposition, expressed or not, from many politicians and civil servants at national level because it implies the loss of power, status and sometimes also redundancies.
 
While it is correct that there would remain only one Foreign Secretary, One (federal) Defense Secretary, one (federal) Finance Minister, one (federal) Justice Minister, nothing prevents maintaining “national” administrations endowed with considerable powers following the model of the 50 States forming the USA : each have their own Parliament, their own national guard, their judicial autonomy for intrastate matters, etc. This reflects a coherent application of the concept of “subsidiarity” which has become impossible to apply within the Union when the democratic legitimacy of two levels of power enter into conflict as exemplified by the Italian budgetary dispute.
 
There is, however, a great deal of hypocrisy in the posture of integrationists who in the name of pragmatism often preach a step by step approach to change to avoid frightening the citizen or giving arguments to the nationalists. In fact, it is often an attempt to protect the narrow interests of  national politicians to the detriment of the common good which would allow the Union to better represent the interests of all Europeans on the international scene, where it is currently carrying less and less weight and respect.
 
Making deliberately the debate between the opposing concepts – “national sovereignty” against “federal integration” - the heart of the forthcoming European parliamentary elections would ensure maximum participation in the poll. It would allow – whatever the result – to establish democratically the orientation that the citizens wish to give to “their” Union rather than to leave the responsibility with a self-proclaimed “elite” whose motivations are often aligned with their personal interests.[...]

Full article on Paul N. Goldschmidt website

© Paul Goldschmidt