We cannot resign ourselves to Europe being no more than a huge market or a free trade area
And while I am in total agreement with this statement, I don’t believe that the 27 member EU in existence today is capable of any more integration. There are so many countries that disagree with the idea of a United Europe; it’s not just the Brits anymore. The EU of 2007 is too heterogeneous, too large and there is lack of political will. Two-Speed Europe here we come…
…Which makes us wait to see when will the leaders/and builders of this union drop out of this virtual wanna-be . The failure of the euro-constitution was just a sign. As one of my con law professors used to say, “You’ll never make a federal state in Europe”. How true.
Indeed, I’m also very concerned about the future of the EU under its current structure (i.e. without considerable institutional and structural reform).
In my opinion, and as I’ve written before, one main reason for the current impasse was that the EU committed to enlargement in 2004 and 2007 without taking into consideration its institutional and legal ramifications under the current treaties. And the political and cultural shock to the dominant Franco-centric view of the EU (the one that favoured political integration) was obviously massive. While the EU15 might have been unable to further political integration right now, I believe it would have been a possibility some years from now, considering the challenges Europe is facing in the world and the deficiencies of a trade union (cf. a political one). In contrast, the EU27, lacking the political and social framework of the sort the Constitution would provide, seems doomed to fail in the long term as anything other than a free-trade zone. The only thing reminiscent of the idea of further integration is the Eurozone and the Brussels Bureaucratic machine. But, for a lot of people, a free-trade zone seems not to suffice for an economically competitive and socially viable Europe in this century.
I believe that a loose Federation between some of the states currently in the EU in the next 20 years is a possibility, and a strong one at that, considering the desire for further integration amongst some of the EUs leading and oldest members (Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain, Hellas) and the rejection of the possibility of any such development by countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, the UK, Denmark and others. Hence the ‘Two-Speed Europe’. In light of this, I think that your professor was not exactly right: a loose multi-national federation in Europe is perhaps the only viable possibility for a considerable part of what we call the EU today. A Federal Europe in the complete, all-encompassing sense impossible, indeed.
I cannot really see the reason , or the feasibility behind the concept of EU as a political union. For historical reasons, as well as due to the great diversity of the nations comprising the EU27 , I believe we can hardly anticipate a federation as the USA or as the former USSR.
We could say that for the time being, EU does work as a ‘loose’ federation (confederation), in the sense that a great deal of national legislation originates from EU (central) legislative power. But, in what manners could a loose federation, as you say, promote the impact of the EU in the international arena?
Well, I never claimed that an EU27 Federation is possible or desirable. I wrote about closer integration between some (’significant part’) of the countries in the Union that seem to favour it. I also never argued in favour of a U.S. style federation (I am not going to include the U.S.S.R. as I don’t consider it relevant or worthy of consideration or discussion). In any case, the U.S. was the outcome of a war branded as ‘civil’ in order to promote the idea of a ‘nation’. That’s in no way what I envision for Europe.
In my opinion, the EU today is broken, a complete mess: selective application of unratified de-facto policies (see what’s happening now with the newly welcomed EU citizens’ right to travel and work in some EU countries), old treaties originally designed for a few, similarly minded countries and a slow, expensive and largely inefficient bureaucratic machine. There are vast ideological, political and economic rifts within the union that preclude any possibility of further integration or, arguably, the continued operation of the EU as an international organisation under the existing treaties. The difference between the views of France/Germany and, say, UK/Poland on what the EU is and stands for is huge. Decision-making within the EU today is very hard for anything that matters (the Iraq war, Iran, immigration, Turkey, the need for EU-wide agencies, e.g. Frontex); then there’s lack of a clear understanding, interest and promotion of the EU for what it is, both among the EU population and among the leadership.
In my opinion, the constitution is a requirement, not an option and on that I agree with Merkel. The content of the 2004 constitution might have been naive and idealistic for some, but its purpose was essential (arguably badly needed) even for today’s Union. If you don’t like or are scared by the term ‘Constitution’ think of it as ‘treaty reform’.
I believe that further political integration under a democratic well-designed framework between some similarly-minded countries (see above) would definitely promote the interests of those countries much further than what the EU manages to do today. It would definitely put an end to all that hypocrisy within Europe about what the EU stands for, what the guiding principles and policies are, the excessive waste and lack of accountability associated with existing institutions. It would truly remove the borders between participating countries, facilitating population transfer, business, research and trade, but also forging real, strong political, economic and military ties between them. I believe that it is possible to retain the diversity in Europe, to gain from it while furthering the integration of our institutions — already based on our largely common cultural, legal and social backgrounds — to our benefit. All this diversity talk often makes no sense to me (I have, in the past, also found it somewhat hypocritical too, when the invocation of diversity and history serve as covers for irrational hostility towards Europe): the concept of a United Europe or if you prefer it a federation of European States does not have to harm diversity. A {culturally, economically, socially} weak, increasingly influenced and dependent Europe does.
I believe that Europe does not stand a chance without some sort of functioning meaningful Union in this century (not necessarily political). And while the EU27 seems too diverse, too different or incompatible to forge a closer (or even functioning according to some) Union right now, some of the EU15 countries don’t and could very well do it.
Well, if a new EU constitution is to include clauses that will really help speeding up policy-taking procedures (legislative ones included), then, so be it. That’s what EU really needs now, an “effective” /operative constitution.
Eliminate vetos, enhance procedures and impose stricter controls in newly-entering countries. Common foreign policy may not be feasible, neverthless improving the politics inside the Union may be more worth it/