What Remains To Be Done

In these weeks and these months, the debate about the future of the European Union intensified more than it ever has in the past. The European election has forced the political classes to take sides in an explicit or at least somewhat clear way.

Antonio Padoa Schioppa
Emeritus Professor of History of Law at the University of Milan, Italy. Former President of the Centre for Studies on Federalism.

The recent appeal by the French president Macron reiterated, with renewed clarity, the fundamental themes discussed in his now well-known speech at the Sorbonne in September 2017. He again stated the will to bring to life a European sovereignty capable of participating equally in the politics of tomorrow’s world, when only few large continental States will effectively have a say in it. Among these, Europe should be active as well, provided it is endowed with an effective political union. It is meaningful that the French president directly addressed all of the Union’s citizens, with an evident correlation to the impending voting session in the European Parliament.

However, one must observe that in Macron’s formulation the protagonists of this constructive turning point towards a political union of our continent seem to be, almost exclusively, the governments of the Union’s Member States themselves. The establishment of multiple Agencies is suggested, but very little is said about the European Commission and too little weight is given to the role of the European Parliament. In other words, the French president’s approach mainly remains intergovernmental. This also seems to be the attitude of the new leader of the leading party in Germany (the CDU), Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (AKK), who will probably succeed Angela Merkel.

It would not only be unjust but also incorrect to disregard the relevant results attained recently by the current Union, particularly in the monetary policy and on competition policy, two fields where the federalist approach has been clearly adopted by the treaties. However, the Union still continues to lack some fundamental features enabling it to operate efficiently and in a democratically legitimate manner for the goals of peace in security, welfare and solidarity, which together with democracy and protection of rights, constitute the aisles of the big cathedral of Europe.

In short, the path that remains to be followed can be outlined with a few key-points, each to be put on the Union’s agenda on the basis of the fundamental subsidiarity principle. The response to the two crises Europe has faced in the last decade lies firstly with granting the Union an actual, democratically legitimate government.  This has been lacking in these years and ought to be up to the Commission, though without taking away the European Council’s significant role as political stimulus; a role which it has and does still play, but which should not be its exclusive prerogative.

Secondly, it is necessary that the Union’s government develops a precise operative strategy in order to guarantee the security of European citizens, because it is firstly the lack of security that explains the anti-European resistances. In concrete terms, what is needed is a wide range of policies, mainly:   a) a common defence limiting the risks of international crises potentially disrupting peace; b) an economic policy strongly supporting environmental protection; c) big investments in European public goods, that is, in alternative energies, basic research, development and guarantees of AI; d) social policies on employment, especially for youth and for the reduction of inequalities; e) an efficient and shared migration policy based on common guidelines and guarantees.

Thirdly, in order to meet these goals it is urgent to give the Union a sufficient budget, at least doubling the current amount of 1% of the gross domestic product of the Union itself.

The establishment of a tax on carbon emissions (a carbon tax) would alone suffice to double in a few years the European budget.  At the same time it would constitute a historically relevant measure – on a global level, as well – towards controlling the major climatic and environmental risks weighing on the planet, which are now threatening to become irreversible in the span of a few decades. The institution of some specialised Agencies will be necessary, but these will have to operate under the control of the Commission and the European Parliament, and be subject to the Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.

Fourthly, all of the Union’s policies need to be developed with the determining contribution of the European Parliament both on a legislative level and regarding the fundamental choices of government, internal and external to the Union. The power of co-decision has to become the rule: in European taxation, as well as in the decisions of foreign affairs; in the common defence, as well as in the legislative harmonisation; in the choices regarding security, as well as in the guidelines on the Union’s migration policy. The European Parliament must have its own autonomous power of taxation.

Fifthly, it is essential that the two organs representing the States, i.e. the European Council and the Council of the Ministers, always take their decisions with a simple or qualified majority, thus finally abolishing, with no exception, the paralysing veto power.  In this way it will be possible, of course within the range of the Union’s competences, to come to a decision even when there is no unanimous consensus on the choice to make. Furthermore, the amendment of treaties needs to take place with a qualified majority, following the Convention procedure set up by the Lisbon Treaty.

It is essential that these objectives be enunciated by the parties supporting the advancement of the European Union and that the citizens be well-informed, without being beguiled by populist slogans, which are as much peremptory as they are unsubstantiated. The majorities that are taking shape in the Parliament will be determining for the future of the Union.

Translated by Martina Sclaverano