There are various expectations surrounding the European elections next spring. Higher levels of abstention could favour the anti-European vote. Which could result in populist movements contending, for the first time, the traditional parliamentary domination of the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES), with as yet unforeseeable consequences.
Idon’t know to what extent this prediction is firmly grounded or just a nightmare that will not stand the test of time. But it could have a knock-on effect. The EPP and PES might feel the need to concentrate their electoral campaigns on social issues and growth in order to dispel this prediction (or nightmare), fully aware that, for the overwhelming majority of the electorate, Europe has lost its appeal. It no longer adds value compared to national governments, it has ceased to defend its social model and is no longer striving to ensure that its citizens are not left out in the cold.
This outlook is certainly justified. If European membership was initially seen as a way of sidelining war and building peace among European countries, a crucial issue for the generations just emerging from the Second World War, in later years consensus was maintained around the idea that building a united Europe could add something to national citizenship: more rights, more resources and a broader market. Today, as the recent economic crisis spread and worsened, many people have come to feel that Europe is not a solution but a trap that forces member states to pay an even higher price: ever-harsher sacrifices for the most indebted eurozone countries, propped up by solidarity contributions from other nations not entirely partial to the idea of having to pay off debts for which they were not responsible. And all Member States are now eagerly awaiting a return to growth, which Europe seems unable to stimulate. So what is the issue at stake here? One hopes that the traditional political parties converge in their commitment to growth and safeguarding social rights, above and beyond their different positions on the austerity measures implemented thus far (the PES is more critical, whereas the EPP is more resolute, having backed German Chancellor Angela Merkel and taken the brunt of the responsibility over these measures). But the fact is that Europe, in its current condition, is not equipped to honour these kinds of commitments, while many eurozone nations are doing all they can to shirk complying with the constraints imposed for financial redress. What is needed to overcome this situation?
Essentially, ‘more Europe’ is needed, and specifically, more resources and greater jurisdiction at a European level. This would enable Europe to carry out that anti-cyclical role crucial to minimising and balancing out the cyclical effects of austerity that Member States cannot avoid and are unable to offset if left to their own devices.
From a rational standpoint no one seems to have any qualms with this, so long as it is clear that this goal can only be achieved if member countries also adopt domestic reforms to boost competitiveness, without complaining or blaming Europe for their inaction. However, all EU states are loath to make this an election campaign issue because the current widespread hostility towards Europe means any message that basically boils down to ‘more Europe’ will be badly received, even if it does not mean ‘more of the same’ but rather, a more integrated and improved Europe. It should be noted that this would not mean an immediate call for a European Constituent Assembly from one day to the next. European citizens would be hard put to see the connection between this and the problems currently tormenting them. Instead, steps should be taken to empower the EU’s ‘fiscal capacity’ already included in documents issued by the European Council and the Commission, which would not serve to pay the debts of countries in trouble but could help keep their economies afloat. The Banking Union, in the works for some time now, should finally be implemented: not to simply punish the participating banks but to enable them to restore the circulation of liquidity in Europe. (Criticism has rightly been levelled against the harsh conditions recently imposed by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council
[ECOFIN] on the use of shared funds, which has worked against the intention of promoting reliable and responsible banks rather than repentant institutions reduced to a state of humbled helplessness). Of course, a broader range of integration tools will make it even more necessary to align the complex system of European governance to the needs of democratic legitimisation these developments will spawn. But at that point, if things work out, the citizens themselves will call for this and then it will make sense to discuss more strictly ‘constitutional’ reforms and – why not? – a new Covenant to govern them.
In other words, we need to introduce – or reintroduce – a new cycle of integration, without which we risk getting stuck in our current
bottleneck, prey to forms of populism that exploit the inevitable discontent yet incapable of finding a solution, precisely because we are paralysed by fear of this discontent. European political parties will not circumvent this paradox by preaching social relations
and growth: they must have the courage to explain and create consensus around what is actually needed to regain ground on both fronts. So the decisive ingredient that can make things happen that otherwise would not is simply this: courage. It may not be possible to include courage among the expectations and forecasts for the upcoming European elections, but we can still hope some may be shown.
There are various expectations surrounding the European elections next spring. Higher levels of abstention could favour the anti-European vote. Which could result in populist movements contending, for the first time, the traditional parliamentary domination of the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES), with as yet unforeseeable consequences.
