After General De Gaulle resigned, after losing the Referendum on Decentralisation on April 28, 1969, things started to move again in Communitarian Europe. First because for the first time the number of States integrated in the 3 European Communities (ECSC, EEC and EAEC) increased from 6 to 12 after the three enlargements of 1973 (UK, Ireland and Danemark), 1981 (Greece) and 1985 (Spain and Portugal) the number of member-states. In 1975 Creation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) a very important step in creating a network of regions to weaken the States. In 1979 The European Parliament became a democratic institution, as for the first time it was elected by the citizens of the European member States. In 1985 the borders of the Member States disappeared after the signature of the Schengen Treaty. And in 1986 was signed the Single European Act (SEA) a substantial update of the Treaty of Rome and namely of the EEC, intended to push Member States towards a genuine single internal market in goods and labor (to be implemented by 1992), and to adopt a system of `qualified majority voting´ in the Union’s decision-making process.
For understanding this crucial period I recommend you to read carefully pages 292 and 302 to 309, especially the brilliant analysis of Tony Judt and his wonderful “History of Europe after 1945”. In 1986 there was an optimistic approach to the European integration and this explains that a single market was favored in principle by everyone, from Margaret Thatcher to the Greens, though for rather different reasons.
The consolidation of this new stage in the process of European integration would come 6 years later as a consequence of the end of the Cold War. The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 9, 1989, the 1990 German reunification and the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991 had a decisive influence in the process of European Integration.
The signing of the Maastricht Treaty
The tendency of the SEA was deepened in the Maastricht Treaty (signed on February 7, 1992, and ratified by all Member States by November 1st 1993) that substituted the three European Communities by a unique European Union, creating a Pillar Structure that enabled the different implementation of the QMV versus the Unanimity principle, the Community Method versus the Intergovernmental Method (pages 293-294). All this was possible because the Commission was headed from 1985 to 1995 by his most able President so far: Jacques Delors.
Something that was more important as the collapse of the Iron Curtain enabled the integration of the Eastern European countries in an exorbitant enlargement that in 25 years led to the Europe of 12 state-members to the Europe of 28. The Europe of 15 in 1995 -with the integration of Austria, Finland and Sweden-, the Europe of 25 in 2004 -with the integration of Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia-, the Europe of 27 in 2007 -with the integration of Romania and Bulgaria-, and the actual Europe of 28 in 2013, with the integration of Croatia. This successive enlargements required urgently a deep reform of the governing principles of the EU in the Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2003) and Lisbon (2009) Treaties.(Pages 295-296)
And that was it?
Not really. The Communitarian method of integration has proved much less effective than the Federal approach taken by the US Presidential System. This why, today the EU is still a miracle largely due to the persistence of a dual way of decision making through the intergovernmental and community principles. This explains that the EU has two executives: one for the member States, the European Council, and another for Integrated Europe, the European Commission, and two legislatures: the Council of ministers (referred to as the Council) representing the Member States and the European Parliament, by far the key institution of Integrated Europe.
We do not have a strong Executive as the President of the United States. The consequence is that it is very hard and slow to take decisions and to implement the common policy. A big market is not very charismatic. It has no glamour. And it has no ambition of getting further in integration. The cattle market you have seen in Robert Menasse’s The Capital. Europe is about PIGS. The consequence is that when crisis arrive they are far more difficult to solve. The different self-interests of the Member States tend to prevail. And decisions are reached “in extremis” after whole night long negotiations. Compromise and Governance are the rule. Not real efficient Government.
After the 2008 crisis, the difficulties of some countries –specially Southern European States- accentuated by the strict budgetary discipline required by the "euro" monetary policy gave wings to many Populist anti-integration parties. On the extremes: the Far Right and the Far Left. Parties that defende as a priority leaving the EU. And when you have weak and corrupt short term politicians, like the ones you have discovered in Jonathan Coe’s Middle England, then you get the Brexit Mess. As a result of the referendum held on the 23 of June of 2016 and the victory of the “yes” (51.9%) in favour of the UK leaving the European Union. It took 4 years to get the UK out. And it is quite impossible to foresee if negotiations about bilateral relationships between the British Government and Brussels will take place or we are going towards a no-deal situation.
A good clue about what is going to be the future of the EU is how the 27 Member States are going to face the catharsis provoked by Covid 19. The huge economic hole that confinement is creating would be impossible to fill individually by the States. But how is going to be the financial support of the EU? we do not know. And what about the UK? Are they going to be able to get through this tremendous crisis by themselves? The Scottish Government has already asked for a delay in implementing the Brexit, besides the fact they want a new referendum for independance as the majority of Scotish voted for Bremain. British may have started realizing that even if the EU is not a satisfactory tool, being out of its economic umbrella might be worse.
Another key question is the strong return of the nation-State model with rising nationalisms consequence of the growing of Populisms. Nationalists movements like for instance in Scotland, Catalonia or Belgium would make the EU explode? Would populisms incite other member states to leave the Union? Would the absence of the non European UK help the remaining countries to move further into a tighter union? Would the UK remain together after Scotland and Northern Ireland voted in favour of Bremain? Is the Brexit reversible? Too many questions with unpredictable answers.
Is the Lisbon Treaty a legal instrument capable of maintaining the EU member States together? Please read carefully pages 296 to 298 and 309 to 311.
The Lisbon Treaty
So, wait and see. The European integration process is still on its way. The European Union Political History has just began. Everything will depend of what kind of integration are we looking for or are we able to support. Will nationalism prevail over Europeanism? (pages 299-301).
In Menasse’s The Capital we have seen that the EU has no soul. And this is why French President Ben Abbes in Submission proposes a different type of European integration to face the US, Russia and China. A religious Europe submitted to Islam financed by the Petro-monarchies. An Utopia or a Dystopia? Or our only way? If the EU does not find a powerful narrative it might disappear. The market rules are not sufficient. Especially after the new Era that has suddenly irrupted in our lives with the Covid 19 Crisis.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario