God save the Queen! Europe on the eve of a political revolution?

(B2) The successive crises — the financial and economic crisis, deeper than expected, the Mediterranean refugee and migrant crisis, longer and more intense than envisaged, the resurgence of terrorism — are not only rocking the European boat today but they also challenge him on the essence of European construction and its future. The positions are linked. The "fathers" of Europe follow one another, warning of the drama that is preparing. All more tragic than the others. In a tone ultimately quite defeatist. Indeed, the Europe of "dad" is dead. But Europe is not dead. It is a real revolution, in the geophysical sense, which is indeed looming. She is, for the moment, finally soft, invisible. But insensitive and continues. The British estrangement, tactically designed by David Cameron to impose itself, thus appears as a new symptom which could just as well be a trigger. It could come back like a boomerang to its designers, shatter Europe or, on the contrary, make it go forward again...

Looking back, was it Dad's Europe?

Are the days of step-by-step construction over?

Let's go back a few years... before the crisis. Europe was built in successive strata from sectoral policies, juxtaposed in a certain way to each other: agriculture, transport, trade in goods, are among these relatively integrated... and successful policies. With blows and soft blows. But year after year, things progressed.

The principle was quite simple: we built a legal framework with, if necessary, financial support instruments, and one or two pressure instruments. Construction was then done in concentric circles. A first net made it possible to prevent national laws from diverging and to begin to bring them closer together. Then in successive waves (liberalization and reform packages), the net was tightened, making it possible to complete the system, so as to make the major differences disappear, with a self-monitoring system that was more or less accepted (infringement procedure, judgment of the Court, application).

As the 'incidents' along the way (natural or human disasters, Member States' slippages), the system was supplemented or repaired by opting for a more or less integrated system. And if there was a problem, we put it aside, postponing its solution until later, hoping that time would do its thing. A solution would eventually emerge, thanks to a crisis or a good political conjunction.

An empirical enlargement

At the same time, a geographical enlargement continued, rather disorderly, in fact. It took place according to political opportunities: the end of the dictatorships in Portugal, Spain and Greece; the need to join a European Nordic market, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the opening of borders between East and West.

Each adhered for reasons, finally quite different, to the European construction. Some seeking economic opportunities, others the assurance of economic development, far from the political spirit of the founders. The European organization has adapted to this new deal, but only at the institutional level (effectiveness of the decision-making mechanism, transposition of existing rules, etc.), not at the political or population level.

A fragile house of cards

This device has doubly collapsed at the end of the 2010s first of all because the integrated construction has gradually stopped. The internal market was achieved, it was said. No need for new legislation. No need for control either.

It was then the reign of "less legislation", of "red tape" (dear to the British and others), of voluntary codes of conduct barely enacted and immediately forgotten. Industries, states were ripe for self-organization, that was the most fashionable term. Union was achieved. We were going to adopt a "Constitution". This was to forget that the centrifugal tendencies had not diminished, that Community rules were not always applied, that the internal market was in certain respects rather theoretical, that the work was far from finished in the countries which had just joined but also in the founding States, and that there was still no European "government" or "responsibility" in the political sense of the term.

The European spirit challenged

As for the European spirit, it has not adapted to the new order of a Europe of 25, 27, 28 Member States. Some objectives are only slightly shared. For Western Europeans, enlargement to the East meant, more or less, the last, the end of the journey. For Eastern Europeans, who have never tolerated being on the "border", it was the beginning of the integration of their neighbors... from the East (Moldova, Ukraine...).

The sense of solidarity and sharing has faded over time. Quite symbolically, the very name of European Community has given way to the benefit of the European Union, announced as more political but ultimately more vague in its obligations.

When the economic crisis came, Europe was then deprived both in the administrative and political sense. It reacted late, with a delay effect which itself accentuated the financial crisis and encouraged the internal political crisis.

A succession of crises that challenge the notion of power

The crises affecting Europe are of a different nature, but they all call into question the very notion of power, of state authority. It is not only a European crisis, it is a crisis of the States which compose it which are questioning their future and their capacity for action... The reality today is that it is difficult for a single State to face all the crises alone... After some procrastination, which lasted and sometimes contributed to prolonging a crisis, Europe reacted (or is in the process of reacting), thus transforming the political reality, sometimes without changing a iota to the basic treaties.

The Currency and the Budget

With the crisis in Greece, the Euro Zone and the European Commission acquired means, of the federal type, which were not originally planned. Means of surveillance, disputed because they are not accompanied by the essential element of the exercise of coercion, a certain democratic legitimacy. Admittedly, it is the governments — and their parliaments — that have consented to this shift in sovereignty. But it lacks a European representation of this legitimacy, a parliament of the Euro Zone.

Borders

The migrant and refugee crisis, which is becoming a border crisis, will force Europeans to adopt a common system not only in terms of asylum (distribution of refugees throughout Europe) or immigration, but also surveillance and control of the external borders. This is the meaning of the proposal made by the European Commission in December 2015. Read our dossier: No. 30. Guard the borders of Europe. Towards a European Coast Guard and Border Guard

Terrorism

The successive attacks in Paris, Copenhagen, Sousse, Bamako, Istanbul, Ouagadougou... show that terrorism is not an epiphenomenon. (read our file: No. 32. Europe facing a new wave of terrorism). It draws both from within societies and from outside. Each of the countries is well aware that it cannot face and fight alone in the face of this phenomenon. When a weapon from the Balkans is deactivated in Slovakia, resold in the Czech Republic or Belgium to become a weapon available to terrorists, who have passed through several European countries, to commit their crime in Paris, it is clear that the problem is European.

Defense

The threats at the gates of Europe require identical thinking in terms of defence. The invocation of the clause of article 42.7 by France is a political signal. The Europeans would do well to seize it and have, within four or five years, a real defense capability. Because the means are today very scattered, without any real political coordination. Faced with danger, the Europeans are always reduced to calling on the nice uncle from America to provide men and equipment to be stationed in Europe, drones, strategic transport planes or means of reconnaissance, or even... to repair a runway airport! (I'm not making this up! Read:  The United States wants to quadruple its presence budget in Europe. Fault of Europeans). Europe in defense is a child who sucks his thumb and wants to stay in his stroller when he should be an adult.

Member State

Finally, there are purely political questions. The conservative, nationalist temptation of several Member States should cause concern. References to certain values ​​are no longer evident today. They are even discussed. European solidarity is no longer natural today. It even becomes exceptional. Neo-Nazi movements are developing in broad daylight (including in Germany, which was thought to be vaccinated against such acts). Some countries that seemed "solid" (United Kingdom, Spain) are seeing the development within them of a separatist temptation, gentle, very different from that which they have known in the past (IRA for one, ETA for the other ) but very real. This separatist temptation could reach other countries. We must not believe, for example, that France could be absent, for example. This will inevitably lead to questions about the organization of the European Union.

A reversal of skills in the making

The absence of a European response weighs

From these different crises, of very different types and sociology, it is the very notion of the Nation State that is challenged. Its means of action (currency, police, borders...) seem diminished due to a combination of factors (economic, political...) and have not been replaced by others. The absence of a European state structure weighs heavily. It's not too much of Europe that's problematic, it's the least of Europe.

Of course, instruments have been put in place at European level. But they rest on sand. Because they were not built and planned to undergo severe crises. Basically, to use a maritime image. We used barges designed to navigate the rivers, and we sailed them on the high seas, forgetting that the storm could come. It is now necessary to build an "all-weather" ship. Using rescue boats is a solution to reach the mainland. But that doesn't solve the problem.

The relative weakening of European states

The temptation to withdraw into oneself, at the national level, seems the easiest solution beforehand. It's reassuring. This can be effective in the short term (a few months or even a few years). But very quickly she will find these limits. Because the reality of the European world today is that Europe is weak because its states themselves are weak. It must be said and repeated to the French, British or Germans who believe themselves (still) to be the kings of the world. That time is over! And he doesn't seem ready to come back.

The relative weakening of European states, both economically and internationally, will inevitably continue if it is not counteracted by greater solidarity between member states. The rest of the world is in the process of development — after Asia and Latin America, Africa is slowly emerging — even with a few bumps. And the proliferation of crises requires multiple responses, to which no European state has the capacity to respond alone.

A choice to make

Europeans have a choice today: either continue as before gently, suffer the crises alone in their corner, and pass legislation on GMOs or on data protection, develop Erasmus or carry out development projects around the world, areas that are undoubtedly important but not fundamental for the future of Europe; either turn the tide, transform these crises into an opportunity to move forward (as in the past), choose to go deeper together, to react.

A quick introspection

Europe itself will have to do some soul-searching. Is it intended to deal with the "market", "agriculture", "transport"? Or should it also co-manage certain sovereign functions where States are overwhelmed? How to manage these devices, tomorrow, knowing that the "dad's" method, small steps, from the realm of experts, seems difficult to maintain today, all the more so when we touch on areas of high sensitivity or sovereignty . This introspection, there is no question of dragging it out for years... it will have to be done quickly.

Skills to give back?

There is a political revolution to be accomplished today: defining what is important to do together, what is necessary and what is less so. It will no doubt be necessary to choose to give up certain competences, to share them, to delegate them, to return them to the States (at least to those who ask for it). After all, is it really a European domain to have common waste standards across Europe? In 1975 it was good, today?

Skills to develop

It will also be necessary to define the competences where it is important, quickly, to fill the gaps, to complete the instruments and the legislations. This will eventually require skill adjustments, in one direction or another. It will also be necessary to explain them, to justify them to the population. A democratic effort will be necessary. Even if we can sometimes storm against the demands of the European Parliament, or certain intransigence (on the PNR for example), they are not out of the ordinary but rather necessary.

Long live Europe à la carte

Surely not all states will want to agree to these adjustments. We will have to take advantage of it and not hesitate to say so. They are not bound by the new rules. But it will be without them that it will happen. Europe can no longer wait forever for the 2-3 bad players who are delaying all the others. This is how Europe has moved forward lately: for the Euro Zone, for the area of ​​security and justice, we are far from having all the States on board. Donald Tusk's recent proposal is interesting in this sense. It exempts the UK from political integration and acts on a multi-speed Europe.

long live uk

This à la carte Europe, sometimes reviled, must on the contrary be celebrated. No one is obligated. But those who want it, can and must move forward. The British renegotiation offers a tremendous opportunity. You have to take it...

Long live Europe. And...God save the Queen!

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

NB: one can read an analysis made by Eurodéfense in its last letter which provides a useful addition