Regarding debates over the origins (and merits) of the European Union

Debating the Future of the EU

by Riccardo Gotti Tedeschi

Just as in a Roman arena where each ‘position’ was strongly and fiercely held, all vigorous debates require two opposing parties. But too often, in the midst of battle, the nuances of the debate — as well as some of the substance — are lost. Much the same has been true regarding debates over the origins (and merits) of the European Union.

A Trivial Debate in Italy?

References to the ongoing debate between pro-EU officials and anti-EU populists in Italy have been rather muted. But there have been several variations in the way the different entrenched positions in this debate have been portrayed, particularly during the European elections in late May: globalists versus nationalists, statists versus liberals, democrats versus republicans, pro-market versus pro-state, etc. These rudimentary and simplistic descriptions have at times made the debate, its quality and method publicly adopted for dealing with it seem trivial.

In the lead-up to the elections, the context of this debate was also remarkably affected by voters’ intentions. The apparent division between pro-EU ‘Persians’ (historically imperialist by vocation, pursuing a perspective of unity and peace) and pro-sovereignty ‘Spartans’ (as defenders of their independence, their own cultural and family heritage), so to speak, hid a more significant strategy — one carried out by the political parties (or what remains of them). It was a strategy that focused on advancing the most fitting arguments — those that would reach the most voters.

It was a crude strategy. But attention should be paid to one peculiar outcome to which such a strategy could give rise: it could inspire some clever people to turn into populists because of globalist positions — while others could turn into globalists because of populism! This would be not surprising at all given the current political turmoil  in Italy, particularly since the globalist/populist positions seem to be two opposites of the same coin: each refers to only part of a debate, a debate in which there has been a limited contribution to public discourse — because none of the various factions really has a solid, substantial, or even coherent idea.

It doesn’t matter whether this debate has created contradictions on both sides. What really counts in this debate is, first, getting consensus and, second, expanding this consensus. In such a context, the cries of people demanding an ‘exit’ from the Euro — the belief that the only way to ‘salvation’ is leaving the EU, without even distinguishing EU from the EMU (European Monetary Union)! — have the same weight as the more ‘flamboyant’ Europeanism as exemplified by those pro-EU activists waving flags on their Twitter profile. The funny thing these people have in common is possibly the same (lack of) background of knowledge regarding European Union and its structure and institutions.

However, a free and educated thinker still has the right to ‘cherry-pick’ among these positions. Out of this churning cauldron of different positions, he or she can still identify the best positions and arguments —provided that they are very clear aboutwhat they are reading and commenting on.

A Stronger Role for the European Parliament

The reform of the institutional architecture of the EU is, without a doubt, a thorny issue. And the public’s interest in and enthusiasm for the topic has clearly run out. Take the European Parliament. The Parliament has always been considered a secondary player in the steering of the European Union. Although the Parliament has legislative power, it does not formally possess the capacity for legislative initiative like most national parliaments of EU Member States. The Parliament, indeed, shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the European Council (except in a few areas where special legislative procedures apply) and it keeps equal control over the EU budget.

From an institutional standpoint, therefore, there are several challenges which require specific adjustments in order to guarantee more participation and more representation of all EU citizens. These include increasing the powers of the Parliament and the European Commission, possibly overcoming the well-noted risk of conflict that exists between the legislative and executive powers (such as the function of ‘watchdog’ held by the European Commission vis-à-vis Member States and enterprises). Expanding the power of the Parliament would also shift the balance of power from outside the EU(the Council, which meets in 10 different configurations of 28 national ministers, one per state) to inside the Union. This would grant more weight to a body — the Parliament — that is composed of 751 members, all directly elected by the citizens of each Member State.

A ‘stronger’ European Parliament clearly constitutes an important tool of representation and unification. The elections this past May focused on many of the issues related to the idea of moving toward a Europe of stakeholder citizens, a Europe of citizens who own their continent. This idea, however, has been very much influenced by the macro-level issue of identity. But how much do citizens of the EU Member States feel they truly belong to the EU without any “mediation” of their own country? This question is the key to a better understanding of how Europe has changed over the years — and it requires that we take into consideration one of the goals of the European Union, set out under Article 3 of the EU Treaty: the Union “shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States”.

The Principles of the Treaties of Rome ....

Rome versus Ventotene  ...

Renewing the Spirit of the Founders ...

Read more: europeanconservative.com