The European Union and Europe
Broken down, in crisis, paralyzed, in a coma, disenchanted… So many expressions which reflect the same observation: the European Union is in the grip of disaster as it celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome – of which birth certificate of the European Economic Community. On this occasion, the Twenty-seven will not fail to praise the merits and successes – peace, prosperity, euro, common market, free movement, etc. – of European integration, a model which arouses the respect, if not the admiration, of rest of the world. It’s fitting. But the heart is not in it and the family photo will capture tense smiles.
Who are we ? Where are we going, what do we want and how do we get there? On the answers to these essential questions, the Twenty-seven are struggling to agree and, therefore, to define the future of the European project, snubbed by some of the elites and shunned by the citizens (…) An agreement, but which ? How can we reconcile two opposing conceptions of European construction? Europe must do more, claim some, supporters, like Spain, of a treaty extended to social, energy and environmental matters. Europe is already doing too much, retort the others, jealous of their national prerogatives and/or favoring the economic dimension over political deepening. “No one is moving. There is no key to unblocking the situation ,” laments the former president of the Commission, Jacques Delors. (…) Because this is the other big challenge that awaits European leaders: convincing these citizens who understand nothing about Europe, are wary of it or worry about it like a fish about an apple, that it is made by and for them. “I don’t believe in the disaster scenario ,” reassures the former vice-president of the Commission Etienne Davignon. “But if we do not provide justification for what we are, then credibility no longer exists . ” (La Libre, 03/19/2007).
First of all, a clarification: the European Union is not Europe.
Europe is a cultural, historical, geographical and ethnic reality; The European Union is a pooling of resources by States. The latter cannot usurp the reality of the former.
This is demonstrated, among other numerous examples, by the recent directive on the taxation of savings: the EU is moving towards the disappearance of banking secrecy in the Union; In doing so, it does not take away anything from the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States – on the contrary, it ensures them increased efficiency in the taxation of their nationals. It is indeed a question of strengthening control over citizens by setting up state coordination across borders over a larger territory, an imperial domain.
However, it is illusory to seek to continue European integration in this sense of state construction. This concept is outdated, and its “inspirers” are singularly lacking in vision. The so-called European Constitution is, let us remember, nothing more than an instrument for creating a supranational state body which the people have no need of. As long as the old patterns have not been revised, as long as the objectives have not been questioned in their validity, we will continue to speak of “disaffection”, “breakdown” or “crisis”, latent or open, of European integration.
The second point is that the only possible direction is to review the different institutions that have been put in place (European Commission, European Parliament, Council of Europe, etc.) from the perspective of the service provided to citizens.
What are the concrete services provided to people by these institutions? What value do they produce? Where does the line lie between the bureaucratic body which feeds on itself and the organization which provides an effective, socially useful service? How can we strengthen social control over these institutions as well as their transparency? How, by whom, and with what degree of democracy and professionalism will this questioning and the essential reforms be conducted? Answering these questions seems to us to be the only way forward – even if, in return, it can paradoxically make national states cringe. In other words, we must change clients: people, and no longer States.
