|
|
These are the questions that appear to us to be fundamental. However, the order in which they are considered is far from neutral because it influences considerably the citizen’s perception of the Union… Let us review them [text abridged].
Which kind of Europe?
(...)
Correcting the democratic deficit of the Union provides a clear answer to the question “Which kind of Europe do we want?” It becomes a sine qua non condition for moving ahead with European integration. It also implies a deep reform of the institutional architecture through a revision of the Treaty.
This objective should not be mixed up with determining the orientations of Union policies, the latter being the reflexion of the elector’s will, expressed periodically at the time of the European elections and covering matters of common concern. It follows that the principle of subsidiarity should be strictly adhered to so that, at national level, significant differences can emerge in areas that remain of the exclusive competence of Member States. By granting citizens the opportunity to express themselves with regard to competing policy orientations and, as a result, insuring that their vote will be fully taken into account, one will be able to avoid the trap that is being laid ahead of next May’s elections: derail the purpose of the poll by transforming it into a referendum “for” or “against” the Union.
A Union to do what?
To embark on the weighty and complex path of a Treaty revision is warranted only if there is a sufficient consensus on this second question.
(...)
The competences of the Union in commercial negotiations as well as the implementation of EMU constitute important milestones. It remains however of paramount importance to complete EMU, in accordance with the Treaty, because the financial crisis has brought to light the fragility of the current edifice. Having shared sovereignty in monetary affairs, EMU Members must pool significant amounts of economic and fiscal sovereignty in order that an independent ECB – as is the case in other countries – is nevertheless accountable to a legitimate political power endowed with sufficient own resources, a significant budget together with an autonomous borrowing capacity.
The European citizen should be confronted with a stark choice: either completing EMU or else scuttling the whole project; the status quo is not an option. He should be told unequivocally that the demise of the single currency will entail significant economic and financial hardship for all concerned: widespread bankruptcies, exchange controls, social unrest, not to mention the likely end of the EU itself, making the recent austerity measures look like a Sunday picnic…
The EU should establish a sufficiently powerful political authority, strong enough to take on the large multinational corporations, the banks and the financial markets which benefit outrageously from the fragmentation of applicable rules and exploit ruthlessly the competition between States. By harmonising rules at European level, together with corresponding powers of sanction, as is the case in the United States, it should be possible to find a better equilibrium between economic and financial imperatives needed to sustain economic growth and the preservation of a social model based on solidarity which characterises our European lifestyle.
How to do it?
We have already mentioned that it will not be possible to avoid an in-depth revision of the Treaty. One should not, however, underestimate the obstacles because the eurosceptics have skilfully convinced large segments of public opinion that recent difficulties should be largely ascribed to the Union; a more balanced view would designate the collective responsibility of Member States – particularly the larger ones – for imposing an intergovernmental approach to the conduct of the Union’s affairs. It is of paramount importance to promote the idea that Europe is an inescapable part of any solution.
The solution will necessarily be based on a “federal” type structure (at least at EMU level), within which a clear hierarchy of norms will ensure that decisions taken at Union level will automatically apply to all lower levels. The Thomas More Institute published operational proposals on this topic in 2011 (view).
For Member States already structured on a federal model such as Germany and Belgium, the question of the relevance of a “federal” national entity will have to be faced at some point. Indeed, the devolution of powers to the “regional” entities, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, together with the transfer of the main remaining powers to the European level will remove most of the substance of the “national” government. However, reinforcing a feeling of European citizenship on the one hand and strengthening regional specificities on the other should not necessarily weaken the “national” bond in areas such as the language, culture, education, healthcare or sports, in which deeply imbedded traditions are elements of a common heritage.
If one can thus consider that the Union’s relevance in a globalised world has been satisfactorily demonstrated, and if ensuring the democratic legitimacy of its institutions is the first priority, then it becomes essential, as already mentioned, to distinguish clearly between questions relating to “values” and “structures“ (which are of a constitutional nature and belong in the Treaty) from matters relating to political operational options (which are of an executive nature subject to legislative control). It is therefore a complete “re-foundation” of the European project that is called for; one should hope that the great majority of its current members will find it in their interests to collaborate; specifically, Members of EMU should be aware of the considerable risks they run if they choose do exit the euro.
As time is short, and that the procedures called for are lengthy and complex, one must seize the opportunity offered by the European election campaign to put these questions at the centre of the debate; the aim should be to elect a Parliament in which pro-European political parties, regardless of their political preferences or orientations, will have received an unequivocal mandate to support the necessary reforms in the Union’s operational architecture in order to serve the interests of the great majority of its citizens.
Paul N Goldschmidt, Director, European Commission (ret); Member of the Advisory Board of the Thomas More Institute
Tel: +32 (02) 6475310 / +33 (04) 94732015 / Mob: +32 (0497) 549259
E-mail: paul.goldschmidt@skynet.be / Web: www.paulngoldschmidt.eu