Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Marie B
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
The Schuman Report 2020 on the State of the Union offers a complete panorama of the European Union.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pascale Joannin is managing director of the Schuman Fondation.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 344
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
The State of the Union, 2020, Schuman Report on Europe is a collective work created on the initiative of the Robert Schuman Foundation within the meaning of Article 9 of Law 57-298 of 11 March 1957 and Article L. 113-2 paragraph 3 of the Intellectual Property Code.
Original texts in French translated into English: Helen Levy
Layout: North CompoCover: M Graphic DesignCover image: MUDAM, Luxembourg city (Alamy)
Copyrights: Editions Marie B/collection Lignes de repères
ISBN: 9791093576824
This digital document has been produced by North Compo.
Contents
Contents - Maps
1957-2020: European Integration
The European Union on 1st February 2020
Territories of Europe 2020
The EU overseas territories
1. Political Issues
Citizens’ trust
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office
German fears
Political Europe in 2020
Women’s Europe
The European Parliament in 2020
2. Economic Issues
Largest European urban areas
The 13 largest cities in the world in 2030
A project of common European interest for the battery value chain
3. The International Standing of Europe
Territorial claims in the Mediterranean Sea
Defence policy in Europe
World Security: European Union intervention and participation
Defence policy
Maritime issues of the European Union
France’s global maritime presence
4. The European Union seen in statistics
Extra-community exports and imports
Internal migration
External migration
Economic growth in Europe
Euro map
World monetary policy
The Euro, a global reserve currency
Inequalities and Poverty in Member States
The attractiveness of the European university system
The EU Budget
Member States’ Environmental Performance Index
Share of renewable energy in the Member States’ mix
Greenhouse gas emissions
Water stress in the EU Member States
Disclaimer
The main part of this fourteenth edition of the “State of the Union, Schuman Report on Europe” 2020, was completed before the outbreak of the pandemic caused by the Covid-19 virus. The contributors and experts who were kind enough to entrust us with their articles have therefore not taken into account its impact and consequences.
Despite this, we have chosen not to deprive you of their analyses which, because of their quality, can be detached from current events. The present digital version of this book is therefore dated February 2020.
Pascale Joannin
Have contributed to this book
Texts
Edmond Alphandéry
Minister of the Economy from 1993 to 1995, Edmond Alphandéry was Chairman of EDF and then Chairman of CNP Assurances (1998-2012), as well as Director of ENGIE and Chairman of its Strategic Committee (2010-2019). Founding Chairman of the Euro50 Group, which monitors issues concerning the European currency, he launched a Task Force in 2018 on the price of carbon in Europe to combat climate change. He is a graduate of Sciences Po and is agrégé in political economy. He taught for many years at the Panthéon-Assas University, where he is now Professor Emeritus.
Peter Altmaier
German Minister of Economics and Energy since March 2018, Peter Altmaier has been a former official at the European Commission (1990-1994), and became a member of the Bundestag’s Committee on Justice in 1994. He acted as spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag in the first parliamentary committee of inquiry (2002-2003), legal adviser to the CDU/CSU parliamentary group (2004-2005), Parliamentary State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior (2005-2009), Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2012-2013) and Head of the Federal Chancellery (2013-2018), Minister for Special Missions and Government Coordinator for Refugees (2015-2018).
Patrick Bellouard
General Engineer (1st class armament (2S)). Since 2015, Patrick Bellouard has been President of the EuroDéfense-France Association, whose Bureau he has belonged to since 2013. He was Director of the OCCAR-EA (Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation – Executive Administration) from 2008 to 2013 and chargé de mission to the Prime Minister for the inter-ministerial coordination of the Galileo programme from 2004 to 2008. Head of the DGA’s aeronautical programmes department from 1999 to 2004, he was also an auditor at the Centre des Hautes Etudes Militaires (CHEM) and the Institute for Higher National Defence Studies (IHEDN - 48th session).
Joachim Bitterlich
Ambassador e.r. and former European diplomatic and security advisor to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Joachim Bitterlich was Executive Vice President International Affairs of Veolia Environnement from 2003 to 2012, Chairman of the group’s activities in Germany from 2009 to 2012. He is a member of the Board of Directors of public and private institutions. Chairman of the German-French Economic Circle (DFWK) and member of the independent commission of historians at the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture, lecturer at the ESCP Paris, he is co-founder of the Rhineland Club and member of the Scientific Committee of the Robert Schuman Foundation.
Thierry Breton
European Commissioner for the Internal Market since December 2019, Thierry Breton was Chairman and CEO of the Atos Group from 2009 to 2019, he was also Director of Strategy and Development, then Chief Executive Officer of Bull (1996-1997), Chairman and CEO of Thomson Multimedia (1997-2002) and then of France Telecom (2002-2005). He was French Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry from 2005 to 2007. He taught Leadership and Corporate Responsibility at Harvard University from 2007 to 2008.
Admiral Jean Casabianca
An atomic engineer and graduate of the Ecole Navale, Admiral Jean Casabianca sailed mainly on submarines but also on surface ships before ending his career on board in 2002 as deputy commander of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. A graduate of the Ecole de Guerre, he served for three years as Chief of Staff of the Naval School and the Poulmic School Group. Auditor of the 55th session of the Centre des Hautes Etudes Militaires and the 58th session of the Institute for Higher National Defence Studies (IHEDN), he was appointed Head of the Military Cabinet of the French Minister of Defence and corresponding senior defence and security official. He has been Major General of the Armed Forces since 1 September 2018.
Bruno Deffains
Lecturer in Law and Economics at the University of Paris II-Panthéon-Assas, Bruno Deffains is a Chair of the digital division of the Lawyers’ Club and Director of the Centre de Recherches en Economie et Droit (CRED). He has taught at several universities (Yale, Columbia, Liverpool, Montreal, Berlin, Amsterdam). He is a member of the Trade Practices Review Commission and the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights. He directs the Master’s degree course in Business Law and Economics at Panthéon Assas University, as well as the DU “Digital Transformation of Law and Legaltech” and the Summer School organized with Yale Law School and ESSEC “Private Law and Economics”.
Corinne Deloy
A graduate of the Institute for Political Studies in Paris and holder of a DEA in Political Science from the University of Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne, Corinne Deloy was a journalist on the French newsmagazine Le Nouvel Obs, the General Secretary of the Foundation for Political Innovation (Fondapol) and at present is Studies Manager at the Centre for International studies (CERI-Sciences Po). She is the author of the European Elections Monitor for the Robert Schuman Foundation.
Olivier d’Ormesson
Lawyer specialised in competition law, Olivier d’Ormessson a has been a member of the deliberating body of the French competition Authority (2014-2019). He worked in Brussels for 15 years and for 4 years in New York. He began his career in Paris with the law firm Gide Loyrette Nouel. He became the partner in charge of the Brussels office, and then of the New York office in 1989, before returning to Brussels in 1992. Seven years later, he joined Linklaters, firstly in Brussels, and then in Paris, in 2003, as the partner in charge of the competition and EU law team. Olivier teaches competition law courses at the leading French academic institutions: Sciences-Po, Paris 2-Assas University and HEC-Paris.
François Escarras
After studying History and Political Science, François Escarras joined the school of the Commissariat de la Marine in 1995. He has held various positions on board Navy ships. He then specialised in the fields of human resources. From 2013 to 2016, he held the position of Defence Attaché at the French Embassy in Lisbon. Since June 2018, he has been deputy ministerial coordinator for maritime security at the French Ministry of the Armed Forces. He is a graduate of the Joint Staff Course at the Institute of Higher Military Studies in Lisbon.
José Manuel Fernandes
MEP (EPP, PT) since 2009, member of the Budgets Committee, José Manuel Fernandes is the European Parliament’s negotiator for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, in particular on the reform of own resources. Between 2014 and 2019, he was rapporteur for the EU budget, the InvestEU programme and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). He chairs the Delegation for relations with the Federative Republic of Brazil. He was Mayor of Vila Verde from 1998 to 2009. He holds a degree in Systems and Computer Engineering from the University of Minho.
Jean-Guy Giraud
With a degree in Higher Education from Paris I Law School, Sciences-Po Paris and Johns Hopkins University (SAIS Washington DC), Jean-Guy Giraud followed a European career from 1973 to 2009, notably within the European Parliament: associate of Altiero Spinelli, member of various Presidents’ cabinets, Director of Committees and then of the Liaison Office in Paris. He headed the secretariat of the Court of Justice (Registrar) and then that of the European Ombudsman (Secretary-General). He has collaborated with the European Movement International and was President of the Union of European Federalists – France. Since 2016, he has kept a European news blog (https://www.lesamisdutraitedelisbonne.com)
Jean-Dominique Giuliani
Chairman of the Robert Schuman Foundation and President of ILERI (School of International Relations). Jean-Dominique Giuliani was Chief of Staff for the President of the French Senate, René Monory and was also a Director at the SOFRES. He was formerly Special Advisor to the European Commission and a member of the Supervisory Board of the television channel Arte. He co-authors The Permanent Atlas of the European Union, Mari B editions (2nd edition, 2018). He is the author of The Big shift, Ecole de Guerre editions, 2019, Pour quelques étoiles de plus. . . Quelle politique européenne pour la France? Lignes de repères editions, 2017.
Pascale Joannin
General Manager of the Robert Schuman Foundation. Former auditor of the 56th session of the Institute for Higher National Defence Studies (IHEDN), Pascale Joannin is the co-author of the Permanent Atlas of the European Union, Marie B editions, (2nd edition, 2018). She is the author of L’Europe, une chance pour la femme, a Robert Foundation Schuman Note, no 22, 2004. She has published many studies on European issues.
Fabienne Keller
A graduate of Polytechnique and the University of Berkeley, Fabienne Keller began her career at the French Ministry of Finance and at the Crédit Industriel Alsace and Lorraine. She was a departmental and regional councillor and was Mayor of Strasbourg from 2001 to 2008. After her term as Senator from 2014 to 2019, she was elected Member of the European Parliament (RE, FR) in May 2019. Very committed to urban issues, she is particularly involved in fragile neighbourhoods, with the National Council of Cities, which she co-chairs, and the URBAN Intergroup in the European Parliament, of which she is the Vice-President.
Laura Codruta Kövesi
Former chief prosecutor of Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), a position she held from 2013 until July 2018, Laura Codruta Kovesi is the first European Public Prosecutor. Between 2006 and 2012 she was the Prosecutor General of Romania, attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. She holds a PhD in Law, a title awarded by the Order no. 3818 from April 26th, 2012, of the Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sports, following the presentation of the doctoral thesis entitled “Combating Organized Crime through Criminal Law Provisions”.
Alain Lamassoure
A graduate of Sciences Po and ENA, Alain Lamassoure, began his career as an Advisor to the Court of Auditors. Minister for European Affairs (1993-1995), Minister for the Budget and Spokesman of the French Government (1995-1997), he was a Member (MP) of the National Assembly from 1986 to 1995 and a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 1989 to 1993 and from 1999 to 2019. He was a former Member of the European Convention. He chaired the Committee on Budgets (2009-2014) as well as the special committees on tax rulings (TAX 1 and 2) and was rapporteur on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). He is currently the Chairman of the Foundation’s Scientific Committee.
Bruno Le Maire
A graduate of the Ecole Normale Supérieure, an agrégé de Lettres Modernes, a graduate of Sciences Po Paris and a former student of the ENA, Bruno Le Maire began his career as an advisor to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2002, he became strategic affairs advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and then advisor to the Minister of the Interior in 2004. In 2005, he became advisor, then director of the Prime Minister’s office from 2006 to 2007. In June 2007, he was elected Member of Parliament. He was appointed Secretary of State for European Affairs (2008-2209) then French Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (2009-2012). Since May 2017, he has been French Minister of the Economy and Finance.
Juliette Loesch
Policy officer for South-East Asia, Juliette Loesch is the referent person for the French Defense Strategy in the Indo-Pacific at the Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy of the French Ministry of the Armed Forces. Previous to this post, she worked as consultant for peace and development NGOs in the Philippines. She holds an MA in International Relations from Sciences-Po Aix and an MA in International Law from Aix-Marseille University.
Hélène Miard-Delacroix
University professor of German history and civilization at Sorbonne University since 2008, Hélène Miard-Delacroix is specialised in contemporary Germany. A graduate of the Ecole Normale Supérieure, she trained at the Sorbonne, Sciences Po Paris and the University of Freiburg im Breisgau. A member of UMR 8138 SIRICE, her research focuses on Germany in international relations, the history of the Federal Republic and Franco-German relations, including, among her many publications, “Le défi européen. Histoire Franco-allemande de 1963 à nos jours ” (Presses du Septentrion, 2011). She is a member of the scientific council of leading German research institutions.
Thomas Perroud
A graduate of HEC and Sciences Po Paris, Thomas Perroud holds a doctorate in law from the Panthéon-Sorbonne University. He also holds an MPhil and a PhD from Warwick Law School. He is a lecturer in Public Law at the Panthéon-Assas University and a member of the Centre d’études et de recherches de sciences administratives et politiques (CERSA). He is also regularly invited to teach and conduct research at Yale where he was Deputy Director of the Comparative Administrative Law Initiative, at Berlin (Humboldt University), at Oxford University (Saint John’s College) and at the Universities of Rome 2 and 3, and at Bocconi. His areas of research are comparative public law and public economic law.
Emmanuel Sales
Chairman of the Financière de la Cité since 2005, Emmanuel Sales has been a former student of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Ulm) and holds an agrégation in philosophy.
Wolfgang Schaüble
After studying law and economics at the Universities of Freiburg and Hamburg, Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble received his doctorate in 1971. He has been a member of the German Bundestag since 1972, where he was Secretary of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group from 1981 to 1984, Chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group from 1991 to 2000 and Vice-Chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group for foreign and security policy from 2002 to 2005. Minister with special responsibilities and Director of the Federal Chancellery from 1984 to 1989, he was Minister of the Interior from 1989 to 1991 and from 2005 to 2009, then Minister of Finance from 2009 to 2017. A member of the CDU’s Federal Executive Committee, he was Chairman of the CDU from 1998 to 2000. Since 24 October 2017, he has been President of the Bundestag.
Statistics
Olivier Lenoir
A student at the École Normale Supérieure (Ulm), Olivier Lenoir is studying for a master’s degree in applied economics and public policy. He completed his training with a research placement on the European institutions at La Sapienza in Rome. He is also an active member of the Geopolitical Studies Group.
Emma Loignon
A student at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Ulm), Emma Loignon holds a Master’s degree in Applied Economics and Public Policy. She completed her training at Columbia University, New York.
Charts
Pascal Orcier
A former student of the ENS de Lyon, associate professor and doctor in geography, specialist in Baltic countries, cartographer, Pascal Orcier is a teacher of European classes at the Beaussier high school in La Seyne-sur-Mer (83) and in preparatory classes at the Stanislas high school in Cannes (06).
By way of preface
A new narrative for Europe
Jean-Dominique GIULIANI
There isn’t a single place where one cannot read or hear questions about Europe, its imperfections, its slowness, and its – all too often – foretold end. For a long time, criticised by the people, it is now coming more under fire of the European elites, who do not see its possible development without further European level transfers of competences and therefore without loss of power on their part. In 2019, a majority of citizens voted in the European elections. Public opinion surveys show a rise in people’s confidence and real expectations regarding the European dimension.
Never before, however, within national political classes, governments and the Council of the European Union, which brings together its representatives, have doubts been so strong about the relevance of the European Union and its policies. It is customary to seek “re-inspiration for Europe”, to “rediscover the European dream”, with a real nostalgia for the beginnings of Europe as a community. There has even been a call for “a new narrative”, like the lyrics of a forgotten song.
All of this is a little out of sync with reality, to the point that one wonders if it is not the certainty of decline that drives the critics.
At the age of 70, the European integration certainly needs a facelift, if not a “reinvention”, which many politicians chase after without any precise ideas. Indeed, the Union is entering a new era, which requires new objectives and certainly new means. It certainly does not deserve many of the hasty judgements that have been made about it. It can only be judged in the long term, in the light of history. And from this point of view, its past successes, despite its present difficulties, give rise to some hope for a new start. Its first chapter was a long-disputed, but now unquestionable success. It needs a new narrative that corresponds to a new moment in the history of the planet.
After a glorious phase of construction, the 21st century indeed witnesses it getting off to a bad start. But recent developments indicate that it is changing more rapidly than we think.
First, a successful Europe
Integration through law and the economy was a bold gamble. It was won. In 1950, five years after the end of the war, it would have been pointless to try to bring the peoples of Europe closer together through politics, regalianism and the sharing of police, judicial, diplomatic and defence powers. There was deep division and mistrust on all sides in the wake of the horrors of the war. On the other hand, all of Europe’s States were interested in reconstruction and were seeking economic growth.
Monnet’s method, which Schuman carried politically, corresponded perfectly to the demands of the time. It was the right one. Anything else would have failed. In history, federations have been built by first sharing armed forces, diplomacy, police and justice, and this never went without conflict.
Building Europe in reverse was a deliberate choice, because to build it differently would probably have led to conflict again. Weaving together common interests and developing them concretely, leaving aside regalian issues, led the Member States to agree to integrate a little more each time: The Customs Union called for the internal market, which in turn called for the euro. . .
In fact, the results turned out well. Europe rebuilt itself, recovered and, boosted by the help of the Marshall Plan, an intelligent vision of the Americans and America’s interests, it went from being a veritable field of ruins to being one of the most developed continents.
The Member States of the European Union have experienced sustained economic growth and a massive rise in per capita income. European integration brought prosperity, and even the United Kingdom, despite being its adversary, was convinced and joined. Until the end of the 1980s, this growth was comparable to that of the United States, with Europe achieving 80% of the latter’s per capita income at that time.
The American shield provided effective, inexpensive protection during the Cold War. At the same time, domestic success was matched by a certain lack of interest in foreign affairs. Reliance was placed on others, in line with the conditions at the end of the Second World War. NATO was responsible for security and indeed fulfilled its mission by developing interoperability among the Allies, a situation from which Europeans are still benefiting.
Centuries do not necessarily last a hundred years. The 20th century began in 1914 and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It was a completely new context that presented itself to Europe from that time on. The European Union was winning, its enlargement continued, its model attracted and it literally “drew in” its borders from the East. Overconfidence? In reality, since the beginning of the 1980s, the European economy had changed appearance: public spending and debt was rising, and there was political alternation in several of the Union’s countries. This is what the growth statistics show. The “blue period”, a blessed moment for the European economy, now seems to be over.
A bad start to the century
Europe ended the 20th century in budgetary complacency, economic recklessness and security euphoria, which it immediately paid for with the public debt crisis.
The introduction of the euro coincided with the entry into the new century. It was an essential phase of the European Union’s political integration and remains an unfinished stage in economic and budgetary terms. Swept away by the generosity of the European Structural Funds, which we owe to Jacques Delors’ vision of solidarity, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland with their speculative and real estate bubbles, and their hidden deficits, were hit hard as a brutal reminder of reality by a crisis that came from the other side of the Atlantic. Some, like France, freed themselves from discipline and continued to spend without counting the cost, a speciality they had been cultivating since the political change of direction in 1981. Others, like Germany, which, together with certain Northern states, adhered to the strictest ordo-liberalism, refusing to share budgets and nourishing an enduring feeling that they always “had to pay for others”. They encouraged bad decisions, wanting to make creditors pay, to teach the spendthrifts a lesson; they dragged the entire euro zone into turbulence. Therefore, an unfinished euro had to deal with investors’ doubts, spurred on by Europe’s rivals and adversaries. The Americans would have liked to have invented this crisis and would not have done it any other way. Intellectually and financially, they are leading the assault on the single currency.
Laxity was followed by rigour, another mistake in economic policy. Greece was bled dry, but was nevertheless saved by European solidarity, from which Spain, Portugal and Ireland also benefited. States reluctant to show solidarity, which could have stopped the speculators who the instigators of a few assumed insurances, were then forced to stand as guarantors and back a robust European solidarity mechanism, capable of mobilising nearly €700 billion, but which would not go as far as the creation of a European Monetary Fund.
In retrospect, it can be said that the management of this crisis could not have been worse. The restrictive measures taken by the European Union for its banks, insurance companies and national budgets, unlike in the United States, have deepened and prolonged the turmoil.
Member States’ leaders have only belatedly and painfully taken measure of the crisis and the common institutions have not particularly distinguished themselves by their action! We remember that José-Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, initially denied the crisis and that the German Chancellor demanded a “haircut”, i.e. the cancellation of nearly 100 billion off Greece’s debts to the banks, thus triggering a real crisis of confidence in terms of the Greek public debt.
The economic situation, the immobility of the main traditional political players and growing concerns have led to a number of political changeovers in Europe and have contributed to a real populist upsurge. Extremisms and nationalisms are reappearing on the continent as they are elsewhere, in India, Japan, Turkey, Russia and soon in the United States. Europe is no exception and centrifugal mechanisms are being created that herald deep divisions between North and South and East and West of the continent.
Brexit is one expression of this. In turn, the British were struck with doubt regarding a construction that had grown so large and competent that it became a domestic policy issue. The referendum of 23 June 2016 deeply divided the country, while its aim in truth was to reunite one party, the Conservatives. It was, both by the election campaign that preceded it and by the inability to interpret the results for three years, the most perfect illustration of the futility and lies of populist promises.
The conflicts in the Middle East, especially in Syria, but also in Afghanistan, have led to a very high level of emigration to Europe. This wave of refugees, together with the economic emigration of African nationals, has taken Europeans by surprise. They have reacted in a disorganised manner and the efforts of the European Commission, in particular to finance States or international organisations hosting refugees far from European territory, have not been enough to stem the flow of arrivals. 34 000 people have died in the Mediterranean since the year 2000. This is a serious failure for Europe.
Finally, in this shifting and deteriorating context, the European Union, its Member States and its common institutions have not won the battle of public opinion. Confidence in the construction of Europe has receded, doubts have arisen amongst its elites, allowing all partners – friends, rivals and enemies – to place further pressure on a shaken continent.
The turn of the century will be remembered as the turning point in European integration. It must be acknowledged, however, that it has withstood the storm. The public debt crisis, waves of migration, Brexit, the financial crisis and the destabilisation of its neighbours have not been enough to destroy a Europe that is resilient and much stronger than on first appearance. During the crises, integration has continued, i.e. the evidence that “there is strength in numbers” has become evident in many areas. Judges and police officers want to work together to track down cross-border crime, the military have learned to intervene together and know how to act in coalition, the Union is continuing its progressive work of mutualisation. This solidity might indicate that Europeans are now able to write a new narrative for their continent.
Writing a new narrative for Europe
At a time when the world is closing in on itself and many regimes are also withdrawing inwards, the European Union faces new challenges; that of its security, its model of growth, its values, which are being challenged from within, and its governance.
This is a whole new geostrategic context to which the Europeans must respond. The diplomatic, security, political and economic environment is very different from that of the 1950s. The European Union must therefore set itself precise objectives and make every effort to achieve them, even if it means breaking with the rules of the past. New watchwords that have hitherto been taboo in Community forums are already appearing: security, defence, industrial policy and governance.
Europe’s values are directly challenged by nationalism, which has spread to all regions of the world. It is, more often than not, the work of continental States, which have the size and the means to engage in power struggles with their rivals. The European Union is neither a State nor an empire. A voluntary and unprecedented alliance of sovereign nations, its members must always compose and agree so that it can decide. And this characteristic, in this period of successive upheavals, is hampering its ability to act and highlights the differences between its members.
The return of nationalism in Europe is a guarantee of serious conflicts in the long run. And while the Union has shown itself to be resistant to the onslaught of those who have accused it of being lax and permissive, it is still being challenged, for example by China, which is contesting the universal value of the human rights.
Europe is certainly the political area where individual and collective freedoms are best protected, enshrined in treaties and sanctioned by the courts. It is contested for this reason by autocratic or totalitarian regimes (Russia, China, Turkey), sometimes mocked by some of its allies, and attacked from within by somewhat more recent democratic political regimes (Poland, Hungary). The challenge of defending and promoting its values cannot be resolved by the obvious defence of human rights; we must also ask ourselves why some people do not accept the spirit of freedom and equality that has been blowing over Europe since the 1950s and find the means, at the cost of a more vigorous political struggle, to make up for these mistakes.
The return of an extreme nationalist, xenophobic right, of the anti-Semitism of which one might have thought Europe had been cured, and of an increasingly violent extreme left as well, are matters of concern that deserve strong and more resolute political commitment. The violence of the German far right and its completely uninhibited discourse are very worrying in this respect. It probably warrants a more assertive political response.
However, it should be noted that the European political landscape has not seen any sustainable victory on the part of populist or extremist movements. On the contrary, the treaties, the pressure of the common institutions and the political reshuffling in many Member States have made it possible to contain or even defeat any of those who have come close to leadership. Europe remains the continent of freedoms, the continent with the fewest enemies and the continent which embodies the values of dialogue, social solidarity and peace. Although it needs to relearn the language of power relations, this makes it a unique political space in the world. It could capitalise on these attributes and reap the benefits of these.
European sovereignty is a goal put forward by the French President and shared by several of his counterparts. It concerns the defence and security of the continent, but also the economy and protection of the European model. From this point of view, belated but real awareness has woken Europeans up. Jean-Claude Juncker played his role as President of the European Commission by launching the European Defence Fund, and France and Germany have made “permanent structured cooperation” possible in the field of defence equipment. Developing somewhat late in the day, with very specific political and legal constraints such as in Germany, Europe’s defence has made unexpected progress in just a few months. They will have to be confirmed in practice and budgets, but they are an innovation that should not be underestimated.
The French President went further than his predecessors by officially declaring that the French deterrent, now the only one within the Union, obviously had a European dimension, and by inviting its partners to nuclear dialogue and joint exercises.
Some ten European external operations are currently under way. Europeans are in Mali working alongside the French forces. A European security mission is sailing in the Strait of Hormuz. The defence of Europe is moving forward, even if some believe it is too slow. The Union might take note of these realities, from which there will be no return. It could very quickly share a common strategic culture, which it has been lacking for a long time. It could even learn collectively to better defend its interests, including at distance. A provision in Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union allows it to entrust a particular mission to a group of Member States, and it could one day provide for the financing of external interventions from European appropriations.
This sovereignty must also be asserted in the economic and legal fields. Competition law must be reformed, as called for by several Member States. The EU Commissioner responsible for this, Margrethe Vestager, has promised to initiate consultations to this end. A real industrial policy is taking shape, with the decision to create a European battery industry, to better control foreign investment and, little by little, as with defence, to introduce the hitherto ignored principle of European preference. For a long time, the Union was obliged to open up to the world and its development depended on it. It was right to do so. Without closing itself in, it must now protect itself, defend its interests and promote them externally. These are new objectives which correspond to a new world order.
As a means of countering illegal immigration and regulating migratory flows, Europeans have created a European border and coastguard corps which could comprise up to 10 000 civil servants to support the efforts being made by the States most under pressure. This body will gradually acquire its own resources and provide the Union with a genuine border police force. States are continuing to harmonise their asylum and immigration laws. They need to speed up this process, and it is almost certain that they will be forced to do so out of necessity.
All of these advances may seem overdue, but they are moving in the direction of a common sovereignty that has been requested and is now being organised. Whilst the Union lags behind in taking account of the new strategic context, its members increasingly share the same fears and could therefore agree more quickly than expected on important developments.
The budgetary arm-wrestling, they engage in each time a common budget has to be adopted is, moreover, the measure of their convergence in this area. It has to be acknowledged that the “penny pinchers” are still opposed to the others with very national arguments, but their number is steadily declining.
It remains for the Member States to agree to amend and supplement the treaties that are now outdated.
This is a taboo subject, since the unanimity required for this is deemed impossible to achieve. But if we carry on like this, as if the environment has not changed, it could prove worse than trying to innovate.
If it is not possible to supplement the current Treaties, the Union will move forward outside the Treaties, as it has already done, and these transgressions will multiply under the influence of necessity.
The first duty of Europe’s leaders is to move beyond a purely diplomatic framework and to make policy together. They are able to do this when urgency demands it and when their interests require it.
The second is not to try to move forward at all costs as 27. A few Member States are enough to develop innovative cooperation. If it fits in with European objectives and remains open to others, then it is the best way forward. The Community method, which must be retained for common policies already under way, cannot always work for initiatives involving genuine transfers of sovereignty in areas which have hitherto been the exclusive responsibility of the States. “Integration by example”, which is open to others, may be the only real way of pursuing the necessary pooling of our resources. To that end, we need to focus on precise objectives before thinking about the means to be implemented. A Union in which the Heads of State and Government assume their full political responsibilities and do not leave it to their diplomats to find compromises, would be in a position to rise to the challenges at stake. These must be defined by a few as collective goals to be achieved.
Whether we like it or not, Europeans are moving in that direction faster than we think. In the light of recent developments, it can be said that if the “glass of Europe” can be judged to be half full, half empty, it is filling up. Perhaps too slowly, but surely, and with no going back.
It is time to write a new narrative for Europe, to be proud of the progress made, but lucid about its recent difficulties. Each period of history corresponds to a different Europe. Europeans can now shape the Europe of the 21st century. They seem to have started this work already.
1
Political issues
The governance of the European Union
Alain LAMASSOURE
Governance: history is still making its voice heard
One hundred and fifty years before Christ, the Greek historian Polybius was fascinated by the way Rome had conquered the entire Mediterranean in less than half a century. The feat was all the more incredible because, unlike defeated empires, Rome was a strange republic, powered by a complicated machinery, embodied not by a man-god but by an acronym: SPQR1 – “the Senate and the Roman People”. The Roman Republic seemed to him fortunately to combine the advantages of the three regimes already identified by philosophers: monarchy, the power of one; oligarchy, the power of many; democracy, or the power of all. The turbulent people of Rome were represented by an inescapable magistrate, the tribune of the “plebeians”; the almighty Senate not only brought together a plutocratic aristocracy, its composition was also the result of a remarkable selection of the elites, the culmination of the honorary curriculum; and if sometimes there was recourse to the appointment of a chief dictator-general, it was for a limited period, when the gravity of the times or the urgency of ambitions required it.
Basically, twenty-two centuries later, in obviously very different forms, complex democracies need the same triumvirate: the leader, the elites, the people. Now, legitimacy is on the rise: it is the vox populi that has the authority of the divine word. But power is ultimately embodied in a single person, and the complexity of societies requires the training, selection and proper employment of a wide variety of elites, who are at once the mirrors of society (elected officials, trade unions), watchmen (teachers, researchers, spiritual authorities) and bridge or machine officers (administrators, managers). Successful systems are those that combine the advantages of support through popular sentiment, management by the best specialists and piloting by one. This single person is the embodiment, not of supreme but ultimate power: the last in the chain of command, responsible for the “hot potato” before the citizens, within the limits of the checks and balances, and the ethical rules of the rule of law.
