The Future of Europe “From Monetary to Political Union”, Magazine “Civil Society”

Magazine “Civil Society,”

of the Citizens’ Union for Intervention

Article of Anna Karamanou

Mr. MEP

“FROM MONETARY UNION TO POLITICAL UNION..

the EU in search of identity..”

1. the gap between economy and politics

The question that the EU is called to answer today is whether it is possible to almost completely supranationalize several important institutions (particularly those connected with the currency, free movement of goods and services, capital, and employment) while simultaneously keeping political integration at a low level. Can the system function without strong political institutions and without a commonly accepted system of values? Many argue (with the leading theorist being Etzioni) that semi-supranationality cannot be sustainable and that the EU must move either towards a higher level of supranationality or revert to lower levels.

Etzioni argues that the semi-supranationality of the EU, particularly when high economic integration is combined with low political integration, cannot be sustainable because markets are not autonomous systems with their own distinct dynamics, but are closely linked to the politics and society of which they are an integral part. Markets cannot operate without political institutions and without social values. In free societies, significant decisions regarding economic policy take the value system and the prevailing consensuses into serious account; otherwise, the sense of alienation among citizens increases, which can jeopardize the sustainability of the Union (Amitai Etzioni, 2001, “Political Uninification-revisited”).

It is a fact that today the EU is in search of a political identity. In the more than 50 years of its existence and operation, European regional integration has evolved into a complex system without precedent in the history of the modern world. All theories capture only a small part of a great complexity. As Dim. Chrysochoou writes, no other system has been attributed so many and different neologisms: proto-federation, confederation, concordance system, quasi-state, mixed polity, Staatenverbund, consortio, condominio, regulatory state, market polity, managed Gesellschaft, multilevel republic, confederal consociation, mixed commonwealth, etc. Undoubtedly, the EU constitutes a sui generis political system. In other words, “the probing of the elephant,” as presented by Puchala about 35 years ago, remains a very difficult task for theorists of European Integration. At the same time, however, the study of the EU represents an exciting exercise for the evolution of theory, for the creation of new theory and metatheory (Chrysochoou, 2000).

2. the political evolution is a condition for the survival of the EU

Today, there is an increasing belief that the Union of 27 must evolve into a political union in order to ensure its survival as well as its role in the internationally globalized economic and political system. The political evolution of the EU is deemed a necessary complement to the economic and monetary union, in order to stabilize the functioning of the single currency, close the gap between the economy and politics, and enhance both effectiveness and democracy in the EU. In other words, to stop the division of the EU into an economic giant and a political dwarf.

The construction of a European political union and the overcoming of the division of Europe began in recent years, after the end of the Cold War, with a peak moment being the accession of ten new member states to the EU on May 1, 2004. In the public dialogue about the Future of Europe, which informally began in May 2000 by Joska Fischer and continues to this day, many diverse opinions are expressed, including the one that argues it is possible to continue the process of economic integration without a parallel process of political integration. This position is certainly based on the long-established technocratic doctrine that as long as economic cooperation among states is beneficial for all, the EU will have the support of the public. Another view argues that the political integration of Europe is unattainable, if not completely impossible, due to cultural heterogeneity, since any attempt at political unification requires an undesirable cultural homogenization. This viewpoint argues that the idea of peaceful coexistence and stability is best achieved when the “nation” and the “demos” coincide.

Against these positions, I will argue that economic integration and increased cultural diversity have already created the framework for European political integration and that the process of transitioning from European policies to politics and from diplomacy to democracy has already begun, albeit with difficulties, slowly but steadily. The recent adoption of the Lisbon Reform Treaty on December 13, 2007, by the 27 governments of the member states certifies this in the most credible manner.

3. From the Monnet method to the Lisbon Treaty

As is well known, the development and evolution of the EU was based on the Monnet method, which is more commonly known as neo-functionalism. This method essentially foresaw the gradual promotion of the integration process in areas less sensitive in terms of national sovereignty, primarily in economic sectors, with the belief that this would create the dynamism and the integrative logic for the expansion of the content of integration and the spillover of integration into other areas.

Inevitably, the Monnet method downgraded the political dimension and highlighted the importance of the economy in the logic of unification, resulting in a predominance of an economic approach in promoting unification. The alternative method, primarily advocated and championed by Altiero Spinelli (European Parliament resolution 1984), namely, the political method of directly establishing a European federation through the drafting of a constitution, was not accepted by the political forces of the time. However, the gradual Monnet approach ultimately led, through successive steps, to the Single European Act of 1987, to the Treaty of the EU in 1993, to the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999, to the Nice Treaty in 2000, to the Constitution in 2004, and to the European Reform Treaty (as some insist) or the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, that is, to the establishment of the Union with strong and distinct federal elements. The final text of the Treaty of Lisbon, despite any shortcomings and its rejection by the Irish referendum, represents significant progress. As has been aptly said, the compromise achieved is both a resounding defeat and a silent revolution.

The proposals that have been formulated regarding the shape and content of political integration are many and diverse, the most well-known of which are: J. Fischer’s proposal on Federation, J. Chirac and Sarkozy’s proposal on the Political Union of Nation States, J. Delors’ proposal on Federation of Nation States, V.G. d’Estaing and H. Schmidt’s proposal on classical-type Federation (USA), Vedrine’s proposal on Intergovernmental Federation, and Romano Prodi’s proposal on Supranational Federation. As the constructivist authors Glaser & Strauss aptly observe, “the existence of many theories is not a bad thing. More theories lead to better explanations.”

As classic theories of unification, we consider a) federalism and neo-functionalism, which use direct political variables, and b) pluralism and functionalism, which use indirect socioeconomic variables. Among the four theoretical schools that developed around the phenomenon of unification, one is primarily concerned with the maintenance of the nation-state (pluralism), while the other two are mainly interested in its transcendence (federalism-neo-functionalism). Functionalism falls into an intermediate category, as some functionalists are interested in transcending the nation-state, such as Mitrany, while others are concerned with the opposite, namely, its maintenance. More generally, Mitrany seems to prefer “functional democracy,” governance by management committees composed of specialized technocrats.

In the dilemma regarding the function of modern representative political systems, between democracy and effectiveness, Mitrany clearly favors the latter option. For this reason, he prefers the establishment of functionally specialized legislative bodies by political area, which he considered a guarantee for the creation of effective political structures. In another of his works, he claims that “no one should share power if they do not share responsibility.” It is a fact that Mitrany’s views have had a significant influence on the bureaucrats of Brussels, enhancing the managerial aspect and depriving European integration of the necessary oxygen of politics.

However, there may indeed be delays, deficits, and inadequacies, but things are not going that badly. The EMU, the Enlargement, and the Lisbon Treaty are the driving forces of the new EU. Perhaps they will ultimately accelerate the processes of convergence of the different capitalist models and lead to economic and political integration.

4. the important role of civil society

Strong pressure towards political transformation is exerted by European civil society due to the weakened democratic legitimacy of the Union’s institutions. The political deepening of integration appears as a process of democratization of the Union, that is, a process that addresses the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the Union. From an even broader perspective, the political transformation of the Union also responds to the demand for greater participation of European society in the process of integration. Etzioni argues that integration is hindered by what is often referred to as “decisions made behind closed doors,” and the only way to strengthen legitimacy in an era when the public cannot be excluded is through intensive and extensive dialogue.

The theorists of integration argue that the dialogue on values is very important in the process of European integration and does not concern only intellectuals, but people from different backgrounds who must find common ground. Despite the fact that there have been exchanges of views between intellectuals and political elites on the need to create a European supranational community since the end of the Second World War, the general public has been excluded from this dialogue. As a result, there is no acceptance or identification with a core set of common European values.

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the Union is based on values such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights and the rights of minorities. These values constitute the foundation and precondition for the existence of the EU, they are common to the member states, in a society of pluralism, tolerance, solidarity, justice, and prohibition of discrimination. The fact that human rights and equality are included in the values of the Union is very significant, because on the one hand it creates a strong legal basis for their substantial protection, and on the other hand it lays the groundwork for a common European identity, which is a necessary condition for political integration.

5. conclusion

It is time to move forward by building a more mature and political Europe. As the political character of the EU strengthens, the alternatives and policies will become clearer. To the extent that European institutions remain weak, they will be limited to managing, or at best, regulating the single internal market. However, they will not be able to manage effectively the individual policies: the common currency, economic and regional policy, environmental protection, foreign policy, social policy, the CAP, education, migration policy, nor of course the role imposed by the sensitive balances in the immediate and broader environment of the EU. Therefore, the transition from the policies and diplomatic relations of the EU member states to political integration must be accelerated and enriched as a sine qua non condition for the maintenance and enhancement of Europe, which for more than half a century has ensured its peoples a period of peace, cooperation, development, solidarity, prosperity, and respect for fundamental rights.

Anna Karamanou

former MEP (Member of the European Parliament)

September 17, 2008