|
|
Many people, including David Cameron, present the question of the future of Europe in the wrong way. It was not just the common market which Britain signed up to in the 1970s and British governments have negotiated at every treaty modification since accession. From the outset in 1950, Europeans were aiming at achieving more than simply a market. Every change has been submitted to the British Parliament to authorise the ratification. It is time for British politicians to stop telling half truths about Europe and their role in it, exactly as it is time for politicians on the continent to realise what belonging to the eurozone really means. Seemingly these realisations are only just beginning, as highlighted by the European Council’s working documents entitled Toward a genuine [sic] Economic and Monetary Union.
Previous commitments: no hidden agenda
It is not simply a question of 17 Member States in the eurozone and 10 outside, but rather 25 (including Sweden) who are already committed to joining the single currency, aiming at creating a political entity, and only 2 (the UK and Denmark) who have established derogations. Latvia has already begun its accession procedures. Within the next five years, many others may also join this path, including Poland. In a democratic framework like the EU, a small minority of Member States can not impose its view on the huge majority of EU citizens...
Democratic reform
Reform is needed in the economic, social and tax fields. In order to ensure an optimal currency area labour mobility and some financial transfers are also unavoidable. These steps require more transparency in the decision-making process and greater accountability, which means more democracy at the level of the eurozone (or of the eurozone and countries committed to joining), through a reformed European Parliament. National parliaments alone cannot provide legitimacy for European decisions. The European Council must be controlled collectively and, one day, made accountable at that level...
Whether national politicians admit it or not, a closer union is on the agenda. Even if, at this stage, many in the UK may reject it, just as the majority of the French believe they can still refute the institutional changes, or many in Germany, the “Transfer union”. We will probably muddle through, lose a lot of precious time, miss the pedagogy but ultimately we are already on the way to a federal type of union, which will soon require a commonly accountable government and a common budget. There is of course an alternative: chaos, disintegration and populism. It could happen but we should think twice about it being the preferred option.
Not all Member States are going to participate in all policies. Differentiation already exists and will continue to in the future. But the dynamics concerning the common currency and defence could evolve much more quickly than we currently foresee. Sooner or later it needs to be made clear that no one will have full membership without being fully committed.