Dear friends,
I would like to bring the discussion up to the next level, asking concrete questions about how to achieve a further integration, whereas indeed I would say that the so called final status of Europe comes closer and closer and there are less and less competencies to be given up.
While we now are talking, it seems that the political leaders literally talk in our name right now, ➔
Show full article …
Dear friends,
I would like to bring the discussion up to the next level, asking concrete questions about how to achieve a further integration, whereas indeed I would say that the so called final status of Europe comes closer and closer and there are less and less competencies to be given up.
While we now are talking, it seems that the political leaders literally talk in our name right now, with Angela Merkel and everybody now seriously demanding a political union. However, it has to be carefully watched what that means in the end.
The political leaders now seem to agree this includes definitely a fiscal union, a bank union and an European investment policy (probably via Projectbonds). The question is then, do we need to go further? Do there have to be further competencies to be fulfilled also in social fields, that means changing the decision making to majority voting for example? If so, are those legal instruments we have to protect interest of national varieties enough? That means the Member States voting in the Council and those instruments - in my view rather toothless tiger - which are up to the national parliaments like the subsidiarity control and right of action for a certain quota of NPs. Other than that maybe it is right, instead of coming up with phantom debates concentrating of real growth potential of the internal markets and improving them?
In the field of fiscal union, bank union and project bonds I could say that there are legal ways of argueing that this would still be covered by the national constitutions, particular now the German one, being interpreted by the Judges in Karlsruhe. One line would say, that the national parliaments, while deciding on the Core Europe treaty anyway, would agree on budget restrains above 60% et cetera, whereas they still would be supreme here, because they can decide on going beyond the debt level and how to use the budget to the biggest extend. However as further you go - that means Eurobonds for sure - you reach the point where you would need a new constitution and referendum in Germany and probably also the other countries. This would need big political energy, where there are good arguments against and for taking the risk. I dont know really. In some moments I think, yes lets try it, we can make it!. In the next moment I am pessimistic, drinking my morning coffee, preferring again the Monnet method. What do you think?
Apart from this there are 2 dangers, which are always stressed. (-->see for example
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/griechenland-der-tag-danach-11775002.html)
The first one is that a further integration, which means a Eurozone coming closer together, will bear the danger of a negative impact on the cohesion of the 27 and will separate the Union into two blocks. While I would argue that there is a need of relativization because the European integration always new different speeds of intergration, we have to make sure that in the decision-making we have to involve the "non-core-europe-countries" as best as possible. However, since it is about making the Euro stable, which is of everybodies existentiell interest, there are good arguments for saying: We can not wait for countries like England anymore.
The second question is of course democratic. That means will further integration not lead to a even further disconnection between the leaders and its citizens. Will a fiscal pact controlled by the European Parliament really make a difference in the acceptance of the EU? We as Young European Federalists think it does. By creating a true bicameral system, the media would be forced to have a better and more positive coverage of the European parliament. Also the European commission would be more in the eyes of the Europeans and could do its job. Apart from this however I would like to be provocative also saying that we might to have to say good bye to the view that we can bring everybody behind the European project, that might have to accept that we reach a system where there is always a 5-10% group of people, who will neglect the whole thing and go after antiglobalization movements, who want to go back to the romantic world of the 19th century. In addition it is of course still about the language, the geographical scale et cetera which has its drawbacks! However, I argue that despite of these problems, we can make the best out of it and that the price we pay is reasonable to achieve a stronger Europe on global scale.