At the meeting in some of the most important think thanks that work on European affairs all over Europe, i.e. Brussels Think Tank, President of the European Commission expressed his views on the present European integration theory and practice. At the State of the Union address, the President was not afraid of using “the forbidden word”, federalism.
At times, said the Commission President, when Europe seems to shift between integration and fragmentation, there is a need for a clear view on European political plans, options and intentions. “Today's program, he added, shows that this is much more than a semantic discussion: it is a fundamental choice we have to make if we want the European idea and the European values to succeed both within and beyond our borders”.
Reference: José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, Speech at the Brussels Think Tank Dialogue, SPEECH/13/346, 22 April 2013.
In 2012 State of the Union speech in the European Parliament, the Commission President described the need to move towards a federation of nation states. He was putting forward this idea in 2012 at a time when the EU’s political horizon needed to tackle the challenges of the future. One of the EU’s distinguished predecessors, Jacques Delors, has used the term “federation” as well, and with the same rationale behind it. So, the President added “we can say that at least the European Commission has a consolidated doctrine on the matter”.
What’s behind the word “federalism”?
A half-hearted attitude towards the project of European integration only serves to strengthen its opponents; to concede the political momentum to those on the side of nationalism and populism. Only by calling it by its name people could get a chance to debate the real issues, to make clear what is behind the word federalism.
To begin with, it has precisely the opposite meaning of what a lot of people suspect or fear. The State of the Union (2012) implied that by a federation was meant not a superstate, but a democratic federation of nation states that could tackle common European problems, through the sharing of sovereignty in a way that each country and each citizen are better equipped to control their own destiny.
Federalism sometimes is ambiguously read in different languages; hence, it implies an explicit acknowledgement that Europe can be united building the EU with the member states. At that time he said: “I believe in a Europe where people are proud of their nations but also proud to be European and proud of our European values.”
Speaking about Europe's federalism is all about clarifying the way ahead for Europe without denying the past and the present; about openly, realistically and democratically discussing the medium and long term consequences.
One of the reasons why the term federalism is so sensitive is the suspicion that countries would be overshadowed by a unified, centralised federal state.
For European countries, most of which have fought long and hard to become united and/or independent, the thought of being a mere sub-federal entity is unbearable. This aversion to centralisation is both understandable and unsurprising.
One of the classic 19th century Irish nationalist songs goes: 'and Ireland, long a province, be a nation once again'. It is only natural that such a nation does not want to go back to being, even if only symbolically, 'a province once again', and the same feeling lives just as strongly in many, if not in all Member States.
Historic examples
In 1900, the French École Libre des Sciences Politiques devoted a whole conference to a debate about 'Les États-Unis d'Europe' – one of the first systematic approaches to the issue, exactly with this expression, 'Unites States of Europe' – and already then explicitly recognised and explained the fundamental difference between the not-yet-united states of Europe at the time and the federal union on the other side of the Atlantic:
'Pour qui veut réfléchir à tous les traits physiques, politiques, historiques qui différencient les deux continents,' its final declaration read, 'en Europe, à l'opposé des anciennes provinces coloniales dont sont issus les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, il existe des peuples multiples et divers, des nations différentes ayant chacune une individualité nationale ancienne et vivace, illustrée par une passé glorieux, possédant le plus souvent une langue de haute culture et une littérature originale.
Entre ces nations diverses, à charactère si tranché, on ne conçoit pas une fusion politique qui absorberait les glorieuses nationalités de l'Europe dans une unité nationale nouvelle, et de tous ces peuples, si justement épris de leur personnalité historique, ne ferait plus qu'un seul et même peuple.'
So the problem is not the political integration, the problem is to have an integrated single national unity at European level. This was said 113 years ago, when the American civil war was still fresh in people's memories and the most turbulent part of the different, antagonistic histories of the European states was yet to come.
Standard definition
Already then it was clear that Europe's unity would be formed along a different, specifically European model. Any federal system is to a large degree original, sui generis, different from all the others and developed from within.
A standard definition of federalism simply reads: 'A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units; an encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities.
“When I was in Geneva in the early 80s, working with a great European federalist, Denis de Rougemont, in his Dictionnaire Internationale de Federalism, that was posthumously published, this was the current definition of federalism.
So federalism in itself is a concept with two faces: searching for unity whilst recognising, respecting and reconciling genuine autonomy. At its very core is the idea of unity in diversity, which is in fact genuinely European idea.
The European Union as we know it today already has a number of undeniably federative elements: a supranational European Commission with a mandate to promote the general European interest, a directly elected European Parliament, an independent European Central Bank and a European Court of Justice based on a system of law, the primacy of which is recognised over national law. All of these institutions have supranational powers which increased over time.
This division of power between the central level and the component states is never set in stone and will always be disputable and disputed. Even in established federal states, from the US to Germany, there is an ongoing debate about subsidiarity, about what the federal government can and must do, and about where its power ends, and should end.
All these are integral parts of federal democracy too.
Tension between the intergovernmental and the community method
The financial crisis has underlined the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the EU’s institutional design and since then, the EU –step by step has come a long way to addressing these problems. In terms of economic governance – with the legislation known as the 'six pack', the 'two pack' and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance – in all these legislations, the balance of power has shifted further towards the European level, with new competences and a much stronger role for the European Commission. Thus, institutionally, the EU is presently more integrated than ever before!
The progress the EU has made over the last few years since the crisis over institutional political issues is not always acknowledged. The EU and the member states have taken major steps towards more and better integration, towards a real economic and monetary union. Despite the crisis (or rather, because of the crisis), and contrary to the thinking in some circles, the EU has countered the risks of fragmentation precisely by uniting against common challenges, applying what amounts to a federal approach. And while there is some tension between the intergovernmental and the community method, it is interesting to notice that the European Commission is even given a role in intergovernmental instruments as foreseen in the Fiscal Treaty.
This goes even beyond economic governance: e.g. the European Commission's authority is now relied on not just to review the compatibility of national law with European community law but even to check the compatibility of the constitutional order of member states with the values of the European Union.
When needs, expectations and demands are so-to-say “federalized”, i.e. EU institutions are bound to follow: that is one lesson of the crisis.
Federalism is also a dynamic concept. The idea of a federation as a process, an evolving and incremental political and institutional reality, an ever closer union, has always been part of the European idea. There is no contradiction between a functionalist approach and federalist aspirations; the two are perfectly compatible, they very often go together, the President argued.
Indeed, Jean Monnet's method has also been called 'functional federalism'. He realised better than anyone that Europe, precisely because of its problematic history, its colourful national identities and plural public opinions, would never be built 'all at once, or according to a single plan,' as it was described in the Schuman declaration. Nevertheless he, and the other “founding fathers” of the European Community, like Schuman himself, or Konrad Adenauer, and others, found a way to break down the concrete walls of impenetrable national sovereignty and change the logic of the relationships between states, replacing international power politics by a law-based order; turning the fata morgana of strict national independence into a wake-up call for Europe's interdependence; opening the way to European unity 'through concrete achievements which create a de facto solidarity'.
This dynamic was present at every step of the European integration process, because the logic behind it has proved to be correct: from the European Coal and Steel Community to the European Economic Community; from the Single Market to the Economic and Monetary Union; from the incomplete Economic and Monetary Union to the further integration efforts after the crisis and further actions in the years to come…
Time and again practical cooperation has reinforced the trend to political integration; shared problems have led to shared solutions; small steps for member states could indeed be giant leaps for Europe as a whole.
The process towards an ever closer union continues: with the Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU, the Commission has put forward its ideas on how this dynamic should be dealt with. It raises the hard questions on how to strengthen cooperation and integration in the financial, fiscal, economic and also in the institutional political field. It positively addresses the challenge to combine the indispensable deepening of the EMU with the integrity of the single market and of the European Union as a whole. And it provides some of the answers and aspirations – some concrete and short-term; others ambitious and long-term. Some depend on political will only now; others require treaty change later. All of them demand a profound political commitment to better cooperation and more integration.
Federalism as “an attitude”
Beyond the Blueprint, the Commission intends to present the broad contours of its outline for the shape of the future European Union in good time to allow the issue to be debated by European citizens and other stakeholders ahead of the next European Parliament elections in 2014. And it is also in the Blueprint presented by the Commission, there are further steps to achieve the goals, hence the EU will need later a treaty revision.
All this is what functional federalism means in practice: to take one step at a time, yet doing it successfully having larger context and a long-term vision in mind. The question is always: how to apply the general, holistic federalist method to specific, current issues and how to keep the institutional dynamic going forward in order to deal with them effectively.
In a sense, federalism is also an attitude: a political commitment to see things through together, to find common solutions to common challenges, no matter how serious they are.
This political unification of Europe has also taken another giant leap forward as a result of the crisis. That is why successive statements of the Euro area Heads of State and Government, where they affirm their 'determination to do whatever is needed to ensure the financial stability of the euro as a whole and their readiness to act accordingly'. These are representing a breakthrough: every one of these statements is an undeniable and unmistakable Declaration of Interdependence.
Thus those who thought that Europe was a fair-weather friendship only, thought wrong, said the President, and added “on the political front, we must admit we still have a long way to go; in reality, there are also resistance, delays, hesitation; contradictions between decisions taken at the highest level and their implementation; and sometimes contradictions between the principles professed and the policies followed”.
Public opinion is still fragmented along national borders; political debate is still too much guided by national interests and national perceptions only; the political mind-set is often behind on the institutional realities. This too is a historical constant: despite its success the incremental, realistic, 'neo-functional' approach towards European unity has always been met with criticism for lacking in heart and soul, even from those who strongly supported it.
Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, the illustrious founder of the Pan-European Movement in the 1920s and one of the fathers of the idea of European unity, voiced this critique already in 1953:
'Europe is uniting without the majority of the Europeans being ready for it,' he said, 'Europe becomes one on the level of parliamentarians and state chancelleries but not within the hearts of the Europeans.'
The same lament was heard throughout the European Union's history: democratic integration was slower than administrative integration, and the EU has reached the limits of this imbalance long ago. The Lisbon Treaty was a huge step forward in correcting this, in promoting a more democratic Europe.
Now it is up to the member states, as engaged Europeans, to breathe life into this European political sphere. Therefore, the European Parliament elections are a unique opportunity to do so.
European political parties can play a bigger, more pro-active and coherent role.
In genuine and open debate about Europe, citizens will feel that their voices and opinions are heard and reflected in Brussels and Strasbourg. Instead of having 27 (soon 28 national campaigns), as usually happens when there is a European election that in fact is an addition to national elections, it is better to have a truly European debate.
In a broader debate on the challenges for Europe, the EU is one step further towards the unity needed to tackle those challenges. Making a closer link between the outcome of the elections and the running of the EU, voters will understand their choice really counts and the political accountability will be reinforced.
European integration has at times been driven forward by engaged citizens, by committed trade unions, by business communities who knew where their interests lay and by citizens who spoke their minds. Today, facing the economic and social crisis, the need for them is more than ever; they have to be fully engaged in the European process.
There are, of course, some risks involved: most likely, in the next European elections, the eurosceptic and europhobic forces will have their share of the vote, also exploiting the current difficult context Europe is facing. But the times of implicit consent are over, and it's better to have a real European democratic debate where mainstream pro-European forces leave their comfort zone than to try to manage European challenges only in bureaucratic or even diplomatic terms trying to avoid the hard questions.
Federation as “a meeting of minds”
Europe would never have succeeded and will never succeed if there is not a community of ideas to back up these initiatives.
The academic, cultural and intellectual narrative about European unity has played a key role in its history, from its inception. If the political breakthrough after the Second World War initially seemed much too distant to some, the intellectual push for genuine European integration was widespread and well-founded even at the time.
Europe was already an aspiration and a cause with popular appeal before the first political steps was possible. Numerous intellectuals – philosophers, scientists, artists and writers – formed an ideological avant-garde of creative thinking about Europe and, as their voices grew louder, their influence increased both on political leaders and on public opinion.
Then, as now, intellectuals realised that Europe needed to form a closer bloc to play its role internationally, to defend not just its interests but its values, the very ideas and ideals on which Europe's societies and cultures are built.
Thus, for the next decades, the European Union will be more forward looking and more outward looking. It will be a powerful instrument for European citizens and Member States to unite their efforts in shaping globalisation and in defending European common values. The world is changing very fast and, together, the European member states can play a fundamental role. Only united and with stronger common institutions, will they be able to tackle the challenges of economic and financial crises, of resource scarcity and climate change, of the situation in the world about poverty and underdevelopment.
And, together, they will also create better conditions to protect European shared values and to keep, while reforming, European social model, its social market economy and the most important features of the European way of life.
Case for European unity
The case for more European unity is clear: more European integration is simply indispensable for the European economy, to shield the EU from international rough weather, to face strong competition and to maintain the trust of markets and investors. Politicians who still doubt the arguments supporting the push for more European unity, towards a deep and genuine Economic and Monetary Union, should ask financial markets, should ask international institutions, should ask the EU’s major economic partners what they think of it.
Globalisation itself is a key driver for European unification: issues like energy supply and climate action, the EU global role in a changing world and European trade interests in a global economy… these issues demand a more coherent approach and a stronger voice than any member state alone can offer; they demand a strong European Union.
European citizens also realise that many of the problems, the risks and the threats to their welfare and well-being go beyond the level of the nation state, and so the solutions must do so as well. European integration can support national policies and strengthen European citizens’ freedoms. Only Europe can provide a guarantee that the mistakes of the past will not happen again and the challenges of the future will be better dealt with.
The real risk of European fragmentation comes from not hearing citizens’ concerns. The real stress test today is the polarisation that is threatening to be the end result of the crisis. So there is a real risk of polarisation in Europe, of the divisions that is emerging, i.e. political extremes and populism tearing apart the political support and the social fabric needed to deal with the crisis; disunion emerging between the centre and the periphery of Europe; a renewed demarcation line being drawn between the North and the South of Europe; prejudices re-emerging and again dividing European citizens, sometimes national prejudices that are simply unacceptable also from an ethical point of view.
One of the effects of the crisis and the shock waves it has sent from one member state to another, is that the finer points of the jurisprudence of the Bundesverfassungsgericht are now discussed in Greek coffee houses, while popular German TV shows debate concerning the state of the Cypriot banks' balance sheets. This debate can be divisive, but it can also be instructive: it can be a step towards a European public sphere, and it can certainly not be ignored. The worst thing for the EU is the political indifference of moderate forces that leaves the initiative to all kinds of populism and narrow nationalism.
The role of democratic debate and political vision becomes very important: it will take leadership to counter these troubling trends, it will take a broad and open discussion on what Europe really means, on where its potential and its pitfalls lie. A debate beyond swear words and taboos is needed, in which the general European interest is defended and mobilised as clearly and forcefully as possible, where a positive and forward-looking vision is voiced as strongly and enthusiastically as ever before.
The President concluded the state of the Union in the following words: :we need a reflection, indeed, on the real state of the European Union today – in the beginning of a century that promises to be as transformative for Europe as the last one was. Knowing all the difficulties and challenges, we are confident that the European Union will once again rise to the occasion. But that will not happen automatically, just because of some “spill-over” effects or historic fatalism. The European future depends on the choices we will be able to make today”.
From: http://www.baltic-course.com/ 23/04/2013