The European Project – What Future?
What Future?
Giving the Whole Thing Up; the Solution?
To deal with the challenges the European Project currently faces, the latest trend seems to be to give up (on the project as a whole or on some parts). I personally prefer fixing and adjusting over giving up in general, but I believe it’s not necessarily a bad way of solving problems IF done in a constructive way: you no longer feel connected to the vision? Give it up and pick another one. You feel the methods aren’t going anywhere? Drop them, go back to the vision and come up with new ones more in line with what you’re trying to achieve.
In short, know where the problem lies, know what you want to replace the broken elements with and be aware of both what will be gained AND lost by giving up in favor of something else.
However the current trend seems to be a very nihilistic one, born from fear, a lack of understanding, frustration, a lack of long-term vision and so on. What makes me say that? Well, I believe most people have no idea where the problems lie, they have no suggestion to replace what they want to give up and they have no idea what they truly lose by giving up.
This whole situation actually reminds me a lot of the French giving up on the republic in favor of Napoleon’s empire. Historians out there do correct me if I’m wrong, but the French lost sight of the vision behind the republic, they got frustrated by methods that weren’t working (by the way, if democracy got 200 years to get better – not even counting Ancient Greece – we can probably grant the EU an extra 50 years to find its pace and working methods), they only saw the bad sides of the whole project and how giving up would solve everything – forgetting in the process what they’d lose – and they didn’t have any suggestions for improvement other than “let’s go back to how it was” (king/emperor).
The result was several years of wars and conquests before a return of the republic.
The nihilistic approach described above and consisting in giving up on things indiscriminately as soon as problems come up without replacement and without knowing what’s at stake, is born from negative emotions, and letting such emotions drive our decisions will only lead to bigger problems, as history – and even our daily lives – have taught us over and over again.
An Alternative?
If we consider that giving up – at least in the way it is done today – or staying where we currently are both aren’t an option for all the reasons explained above, then what alternative do we have? The answer is actually quite simple: moving on to the next level of cooperation.
It seems the European Project has reached a standstill: much has been done, especially in its early life when the purpose of maintaining peace was very clear, but it looks as if we’re now beating about the bush. New legislation is made about points of details and this is taking the whole project from a great vision to some heavy administrative agency, weighting on other administrative systems (that really don’t need this).
In short, it looks as if the EU leaders keep themselves busy by adding new rules here and there but without ever dealing with the real question: to bring (or not) cooperation to a whole new level. The result is a system caught between two stools: it was built with the idea of close cooperation but isn’t there yet and thus doesn’t work. Here are a few examples to illustrate my point:
However bringing cooperation to a new level can only happen if it is shared as a common vision by the whole EU, leading to a willingness from the EU citizens to make that vision come true. For this is where it all starts in a democracy. And from there, national leaders would probably follow the movement.
Right now though, most leaders “protect national interests” instead of aiming higher, and the project suffers from a general lack of support from the citizens. Basically the European Project has so far been built by a few visionaries on their own and this cannot (should not?) hold in a democracy, and will definitely not lead to the next level. It is actually quite impressive that we could go so far with so little communication and popular support.
Remember for example the European Constitution where the French voted “no” via a referendum – mostly to express their anger at their government (it seems, by the way, that the EU is often a way for people to express their frustration…). A short while later, the same constitution was approved by a vote within the government. Not very democratic, is it?
Although I believe the constitution was necessary to move on, this example is symptomatic of how the EU has been built (at least those last couple of years): a few people make the decisions because they see the potential, while the rest is left to follow. This will never lead to the next level.
So, how do we create commitment and a general willingness to move forward?
Then we can bring these two groups together via elections of parties. In short the citizens pick a vision via the party they elect and the people elected, who should be competent, pick the methods they believe are adapted to reach the vision. If necessary, they should educate on why this or that is adapted and necessary.
Why not Going Through a Referendum?
Think about a financial manager and a programmer: they each have their skills and knowledge, and decisions they should and shouldn’t make. The programmer should trust the financial manager to make the right investments, while the financial manager should let the programmer create a great software. If I don’t have the right skills, I let someone who has them decide, but I make sure I understand what’s at stake and that we follow the same vision.
On top of this, during the last couple of years, referendums have mostly been a way to express discontentment or reflected a general feeling of fear (often enhanced by the medias) rather than well-thought opinions.
However the representatives elected should do their job; it is time to drop corruption and self-interest. The person elected has a responsibility toward those who elected him/her and must be worthy of this trust.
Now, will such a method necessarily lead to tighter cooperation within Europe? No, because we cannot tell what people will choose. The thing is that closer collaboration cannot be achieved otherwise; it must be the choice of the majority of the EU citizens, for that is the only way to get the necessary level of support and commitment.
Conclusion on the Alternatives for the Future
The current trend that consists in giving up on the European Project in its different forms is a destructive attitude where we dump everything because some specific elements don’t work and many others are unclear. This, in my opinion, can only lead to more troubles – unlike a constructive decision of giving certain things up.
However since staying where we are now obviously isn’t an option either, then what’s left? Well, to cooperate even more, to “cross over the threshold” in every field (judicial, military, financial…). As long as we don’t take that step, things won’t work. But crossing this limit can only be achieved with the full support of the EU citizens, and we are unfortunately not there yet.