Opinion: Europe - the paths to nowhere!

By European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) President Henri Malosse (pictured)

On 25 May 2014, European voters will have to select members of parliament from among candidates they have probably never heard of, who will sit in a parliament whose responsibilities and powers they know little about.  

The main campaign issues are gradually taking shape in each EU country. And, as usual, debates will be dominated by national political issues and games, with each party developing its own rhetoric and adding a European dimension for the sake of appearances. In this game of appearances, European citizens are often faced with three choices, i.e. three types of political players: those who are done with Europe; those who advocate the big leap; and those who are trying to hang on to the status quo. In our opinion, none of these options would get us anywhere and we must suggest another path for Europe.

1. Euroscepticism  
First we have the Eurosceptics - from the far left to the far right, and an intervening range of nationalist and sovereignist movements - who want a purely intergovernmental Europe. They base their argument on an outdated model of society, namely, one nation, one language, one state. The most radical among them do not hesitate to suggest abolishing the EU institutions, restoring borders, leaving the euro area, etc. However, Europe has already tried this path, and we know where it ended. Germany, the major power of the moment, could well team up with some eastern and central European countries, the Netherlands and possibly the Nordic countries, leaving other European countries seeking an alternative coalition. Haven't we seen something like this before? Aside from the threat of new conflicts, the real fear is that our continent could slide irretrievably into international decline.

2. European federalism
At the other end of the spectrum, we have the euro-enthusiasts, such as the Spinelli group, who advocate swift progress towards a federal Europe along the lines of a United States of Europe. This idea, which has been around for decades, is far more out of touch with grassroots reality than ever before. In view of the EU institutions' unpopularity with Europeans (according to the latest Eurostat survey over 60% of EU citizens do not or no longer trust them), how can they be asked to support a project that involves a transfer of economic as well as political sovereignty to Brussels, which they equate with the austerity measures and technocracy that are making their lives so difficult?

3. The status quo
The vast majority of traditional parties are trying to hang on to the hybrid model of a Europe that is half-intergovernmental, half-Union. In recent years, this model has been characterised by a series of crisis meetings, tired statements and unsatisfactory tinkered proposals from the institutions. Who can seriously believe that a €6 billion plan (i.e. €300 per jobseeker) is likely to make a significant dent in Europe's unemployment figures? A Europe where the presidents of the Commission and of the Council are still jostling for their place among heads of state, is a Europe where, some fifty years on, Kissinger's question - "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?" - is still relevant. The worst choice would in fact be to do nothing and to let the European project drift along gradually until it became a source of perpetual crisis.

The fourth path? 
Three paths, three dead ends! It is no surprise that the majority of Europeans are planning to spend 25 May 2014 taking walks in the country, fishing or demonstrating against a Europe that has forgotten them.

But could there be another way, a more pragmatic path? Others have succeeded before us - take Jean Monnet, who got the European project on track after the devastation of the Second World War.

Europe has gone off course, especially since the crisis, with increasingly divergent economic and social models, or models plain and simple. With minimum wages that vary from 1 to 12 across the EU, development gaps continue to grow and directives from Brussels about the size of cucumbers or the quality of flush devices will do nothing to stop this.

The priority should be to restore public confidence and intra-European solidarity and to return to the path of convergence. For this reason, we need to establish appropriate tools and a timetable for their implementation, not least in areas such as the budget, taxation and social welfare. A European budgetary institute would make it possible to set priority objectives based on the competitive gains expected from greater convergence and solidarity. The re-industrialisation of Europe would be a major undertaking, which would return it to the path of growth and employment, as happened in Germany during the Schröder era. By encouraging national enterprises to work together, we would be facilitating the emergence of European leaders that are competitive on the international market, like Airbus, which remains a rare example of a genuine European success story.

The next step would be to set a timetable for fiscal and social convergence along similar lines to the monetary snake preceding the establishment of the euro. Consensus could then be reached on several principles, such as the crucial need to boost industry and the vital need for simplification.  The third step would be for the EU to adopt a budget worthy of the name - today it represents less than 1% of GDP - thereby enabling it to become a regional player with the capacity to influence international decisions.

This path to what I would call a solid and solidarity-based Europe cannot be taken without the permanent involvement of Europeans - national parliaments, the European Parliament, citizens initiatives and civil society. Jean Monnet was right to establish a committee of economic and social partners within the ECSC in 1951 and, subsequently, the Economic and Social Committee in 1958. Faced with member states' refusal to support the EU through these necessary changes, the EU will have to turn to European citizens. And to do this, Europe needs to convince them that they are at the centre of its concerns.

This is why, when the time comes, a European Convention should be launched, based on the model born of the constitutional treaty, but this time it will not be to agree on the destination but on the path itself.

As Buddha said, happiness is a journey not a destination. This is equally true for Europe and Europeans.

Henri Malosse

Share this article: