European Union needs sustained reform, not an overhaul
|
Version 0 of 1. The last decade of European integration was marked by historic achievements, starting with the enlargement to 12 new countries, but it was also marked by unprecedented crises, from the financial meltdown to recent developments in Ukraine – probably the biggest challenge to security and peace in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Much of the fallout from the economic crisis was negative. Tensions have re-emerged between the centre and the periphery, between richer and poorer member states, between creditors and debtors, between the north and the south. There is a feeling of a loss of fairness and equity. There was a dramatic rise of unemployment and a huge challenge to our social model. But the crisis has also increased resolve that reforms are needed if we want to maintain European competitiveness, productivity, employment and ultimately our European growth model. And it has increased awareness of our interdependence. In order to safeguard peace and prosperity in Europe, we need an EU that is much more willing to act together, project its power internationally and strengthen its role and influence. A new world order is being forged. Either we contribute to reshaping it or we miss out on the future. Either Europe will advance in its coherence or it will face irrelevance. This means that the EU must develop further. I believe that we need to perfect our political union. Such a development must be an organic, not an abrupt one. Reform, not revolution – that is the lesson I draw from my European experiences, mainly from my 10 years as president of the European Commission. Events over the past decade are testimony to the extraordinary adaptability and flexibility of the EU's institutions. One could call it their plasticity: they adjust shape and form while keeping the substance. And that is exactly what we are doing now to meet the challenges of our time. It will require us to develop a new level of political maturity that matches the degree of decisions we take collectively. For a stronger EU to develop, we must address the lack of ownership for these joint decisions. Populism thrives because when Europe is given responsibilities, key stakeholders often shy away from assuming their part of the accountability. The populists should not be given that free ride. For the next phase of European integration we need to build broad-based political and societal support. The drive for earlier phases of European integration has always come from the bottom up as well as from the top down. European integration was based on a clear sense of purpose, a clear idea of the need for Europe. The treaties and institutions have always followed the political will. We cannot – and should not – force public opinion's hand. But we must try to forge the consensus we need. We need a new debate to take Europe further. We need to build a real sense of European and national ownership of the European project. The main challenges ahead of us today must be examined from the point of view of first, the politics needed; then, the policies needed, and third, the polity needed to achieve the first two. In that order. So before we discuss the technical details of yet another treaty, we must answer the question: what is the agreed purpose of our Union? To what extent do we join our destinies? How far and how deep do we want integration to go; who wants to participate in what; and why? Whether we discuss further economic integration towards a genuine economic and monetary union, a more unified external policy, or further steps towards a political union, these questions must be debated first. Europe's political actors have to live up to their commitment to our common European project. Throughout the crisis the political will to act has eventually emerged. From new rules for economic and budgetary oversight to stronger regulation and supervision of the financial sector: whenever the 17 or 18 embarked on a more ambitious project, almost all of the others joined and contributed. The centripetal forces have proved to be stronger than the centrifugal forces time and again. The pattern was for more integration, not less, and for the European institutions such as the European Commission and the European Central Bank to become more competent, not less. But European political dialectics are often characterised by a system where everybody can afford to be a little bit in government and a little bit in opposition; where successes are nationalised and difficulties Europeanised. The time has come to create a new relationship of cooperation, a Kooperationsverhältnis between the union, its institutions and the member states, a loyalty between the institutions and the member states that goes beyond what's written in the treaties. Sustained reform requires national leaders to see their role not only as national but at the same time as European, and to close the existing implementation gap. When decisions are taken by head of state and government they must be followed at national level. Sustained reform also requires the European parliament to embrace its role as a decision-maker rather than serve as an echo chamber for demands without regard for their feasibility. Throughout the past decade parliament has shown that it can play the game – from the adoption of the EU's budget to the conclusion of the banking union. Sustained reform means that the commission remains the indispensable and reinforced focal point of European politics. While the final outcome has not always reflected our initial ambition, the commission has put the decisive proposals on the table throughout the crisis. The new financial stability toolbox (EFSM, the EFSF and later the ESM), the reform of economic governance, banking union, tackling tax evasion, and initiatives to combat youth unemployment are just some of the examples. No other place in the union brings together the horizontal view – the political awareness of the variety of member state situations – with the vertical insight and the expertise on European policies. In Europe, leading means building consensus and avoiding fragmentation. This is why I have made sure the commissions under my presidency took collective responsibility for their decisions. A political executive is not a miniature parliament. While it is important to recognise the political character of the commission, it is equally important to avoid giving the commission a partisan nature. There will not be a European Philadelphia moment, a constitutional rebirth of the whole EU framework. The EU will continue to be a case of permanent reform rather than permanent revolution. For this permanent reform to succeed, we need to get the politics of Europe right first. No treaty change, no institutional engineering can replace the political will Europe needs to move forward. European integration will always be a step-by-step process. Such a pragmatic approach has never been in contradiction with working towards a vision. Quite the contrary. It remains the most visionary project in recent history. Its energy and attraction is striking. Its adaptability is unprecedented. But only if certain conditions are met: when national politicians exercise ownership of the European project and don't treat Europe as foreign interference, when cooperation reaches new levels of maturity, and when the politics of Europe are on the offensive. That is what's at stake in the coming European elections. They are a decisive moment to stand up for what has been achieved and to build a consensus around what needs to be done, to speak up for Europe as it really is, and advocate a vision of what Europe could be. These elections matter a great deal. In my 10 years at the head of the European Commission, I have had the privilege to be there to contribute to the response to some of the most threatening events in the EU's history, and I am proud of the reforms we have achieved since then. But the true reward will come, not from starting but from finishing our efforts. |