After six years of crisis, with many of its countries in recession and suffering from high unemployment, the great political question facing the EU is the deconstruction of the classical historical narrative of Europe. This narrative was for decades based on the linear evolution of History from good to better, to prosperity, to a high standard of living, to the guarantees of the European social state, Democracy, culture, quality, competitiveness.
Now we are facing new forms and new waves of Euroscepticism in almost all the countries. Thus, we need to present to our societies a new agenda, a new narrative that is realistic, specific and appealing.
Consequently, the biggest problem facing the EU and European integration is not institutional, but political and, I would say, more value-based and intellectual: it concerns the way we think about these issues.
There is, of course, an institutional dimension – but not concerning the details of this dimension. Rather, it lies in the fact that there are two institutional worlds: The institutional world described in the Treaty of Lisbon, with the increased competencies of the European Parliament, the role of the Commission and the Council, and the real institutional world of the Eurozone, of the Eurogroup, of the European Council, of the fast, high-pressure intergovernmental decisions aimed at confronting the recycling of the crisis.
This leads to major institutional distortions: It imposes the intergovernmental method, reduces the role of the Commission, brings the IMF to the epicenter of European life in a manner comparable to the presence of NATO in Europe on issues of security and defence.
But the most important thing is that it voids the basic notion of the institutional equality of the member states; a notion on which European integration is founded. There are now two blatant inequalities. There are governments that decide, and there are governments that are obliged to carry out orders to save their countries. There are countries that belong to the hard core of “virtuous” countries, and governments that belong to the periphery of “prodigal” countries. There are lenders and borrowers. There are those who answer to their Parliaments and their peoples, but in the end feel that they have the capacity to decide for other countries as well.
This matter needs to be raised clearly in the debate, and we have to find solutions that respond the major practical problems, like, for example, the difference in interest rates from country to country, which in the end skews the competitiveness of enterprises – particularly SMEs – within Europe, or the big differences in energy costs, which are decisive to the level of competitiveness in manufacturing.
It is also obvious that we need to talk in an open and sincere manner about Euroatlantic relations, about the way the EU-U.S. relationship now appears on all levels, not just in the financial sphere, but also, and naturally, in the fields of foreign policy and security and defence policy, as is apparent from the recent developments with regard to the crisis in the Arab world and the Middle East peace process.
Therefore, what we need to do is return to talking in political terms; we need to re-politicize this debate.
There is something odd about Europe: There is, on the more abstract level, fairly broad agreement on the vision of European integration and on certain very general notions, such as peace, stability, a common destiny. On the other hand, there are very specific activities on the lowest possible level, technical and bureaucratic – very, very important initiatives on the level of directives, regulations, decisions. But in between, there is the reality of our societies and the concerns of European citizens, to which we must respond.
And this concerns all of the political parties of the European Parliament, because we all see that – even after the next European elections, regardless of numbers of seats – there will again be a large coalition that will be called upon to bear the weight of decisions. Thus, there is a shared responsibility among the political families of the European Parliament.
July 20, 2013