In November, the European Parliament went to the front pages of newspapers after package approval over 250 proposals to amend the EU treaties. In particular, the euro-sceptic media, outraged by the proposition of abolishing the veto law of associate States in almost all areas, even as delicate as abroad policy.
This was little breathtaking for liberal media, as changes in the treaties require unanimous approval by associate States, which most frequently do not want to quit control of European integration. Even liberal politicians like French president Emmanuel Macron or returning Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk do not want to be voted on in the Council of the European Union. And they fear that all step towards the federalisation of Europe will give arms to their dangerous local opponents, the Marine Le Pen in France and the Law and Justice in Poland.
However, there is no uncertainty that national veto leads to decision-making paralysis, and at best to any political solution. The compromise that brings everything to the smallest common denominator will not solve the epochal problems facing Europe: from mass migration to climate change.
Veto may besides endanger safety. How noted European Parliament rapporteur on the revision of the Treaties Daniel Freund, "Putin just has to drag 1 country to its side to block Europe as a whole. We must prevent this."
Getting free of the veto law has never been easy, even in the golden era of European integration. And now, after all, the return of national states to sovereignty, which is intended to bring about the recovery of the power lost to Brussels.
Statism Error
As usual, the debate is included in the terms of the incumbents: do we want a Europe of national states or 1 federalised pan-European state? Freund considers the proposed amendments to the treaties as a step towards the “Federal Republic of Europe”; another rapporteur for the Europarlamento erstwhile wrote a book entitled The United States of Europe. It is not essential to add that federalist ambitions are powerfully opposed by sovereign leaders specified as Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Giorgia Meloni in Italy or the fresh winner Dutch elections Geert Wilders.
However, the choice between national and 1 European country is false. Rather, we should consider whether we want a dysfunctional Europe, governed by a group of unruly states, or 1 in which power and governance are shared between European, national and local actors. In contrast to the clear hierarchy in the treaties, this concept implies flexible approach to regulation Europe, involving various actors depending on the nature of the problem being solved.
Proponents of both opposing visions of the statist view flexible pluralism as a recipe for chaos and freedom – although it is actually hard to imagine that both can be more than now. After all, in matters so far distant from each another as the regulation of law, the movement of people across borders or even the transport and composition of Ukrainian grain, associate States do what they like, regardless of authoritative agreements. Even if all disputes were to halt 1 day, it would be hard to govern specified a highly diverse Europe in a centralised way.
The applicable rule of effective governance is that the more diverse the quality is managed, the more diverse structures and mechanisms must be established. This rule is undoubtedly met by multilevel governance (multi-level governance), where neither national states nor the EU nor many local actors have a monopoly on decisions or resources.
Sovereignism Error
Multilevel governance has been practiced informally for many years. During the alleged exile crisis, erstwhile associate States could not agree to the division of responsibilities, the baton took over cities, accepting people and sharing knowledge. And during the pandemic, the EU benefited from the fact that as a community it had a better position than individual states in negotiations with vaccine producers.
How can we explain present the request to specify in whose hands the fullness of power is to rest? And why do populist politicians, who call for the return of the "ruling" states, win elections?
The reason seems simple: post-war security, prosperity, social policy and cultural cohesion of Europe have been identified with the renaissance of national states. And even though Euroenthusiasts are happy to convince that les trente glorieuses, 30 wonderful years of peace and prosperity, due to European integration, many voters present are accusing the Union of sealing borders. In their view, this has made it hard for countries to collect taxes, defend employment, guarantee decent wages or reduce migration.
There is no uncertainty that many people have lost their support for the sovereign agenda in open borders policy. However, erstwhile blaming the EU, they are knocking on the incorrect door. In the past 30 years, the boundaries have indeed been blurred, but for a very different reason than they think.
First of all, there was a geopolitical revolution caused by the collapse of the russian Union. After 1989, people, views, and even alliances began to flow reasonably easy across the continent. Around the same time, the neoliberal revolution limited the ability of public actors to control markets within and above states. The digital revolution, which besides began 30 years ago, was a immense technological incentive for the "expulsion" of the world, which is besides depriving of its borders. And recently, the pandemic has broken all illusions that national borders played any role in the fight against deadly viruses.
Compared to these phenomena, the impact of European integration on the relaxation of borders was minimal. The EU has even actively helped Europeans cope with its effects, for example by taking under their wing unstable countries of the erstwhile east Bloc or creating an Instrument for Reconstruction and Enhancing opposition during the pandemic. The external borders of the Schengen area have proved weak - but it is due to the fact that EU associate States have not supported adequate universal measures to tackle the causes of large groups of people, for example war, poorness or climate change.
Federalism Error
It is not only Eurosceptics that direct their complaints to the incorrect address. Proponents of the revision of the treaties are besides mistaken to bring the position of the European federation closer. The transition from national states to a single European country is improbable to warrant either greater efficiency or greater democratic governance.
Yes, in politics, size matters. However, it may turn out that the European federation will have a paper-focused power, and in fact everything will be broken up into bureaucracy, conflicts of loyalty and confusion of the common goal. Brussels is simply far from problems and citizens in different parts of Europe. Making decisions there alone is simply a hazard of ignoring local contexts, and universal solutions are frequently not enough.
There is no warrant that a single state-like democracy can be successfully made from across the continent. Europe has not yet shown itself to be a "constitutional patriotism" to which called Jürgen Habermas. And the European Commission tends to treat regions, cities and NGOs as customers, not partners. Europe desperately needs real multilevel governance, not another form of centralised statism.
Network Europe
Today the question is not truly whether the countries should decide on Europe on a unanimous basis or a qualified majority. The challenge is to encourage countries to cooperate with both local and pan-European actors; both public and private. States insist on the sovereignty of their power despite the limited capacity to deliver public goods. On the another hand, the Union, regions, cities and the full population of non-governmental organisations, including trade unions and business associations, has proved that they can aid citizens, but they do not have the power or adequate resources to do so.
Some countries not only make joint European ventures hard but besides criminalize NGOs and demonise urban networks. They allegedly do so in the name of democracy, claiming that only a national state can be truly democratic. Paradoxically, this argument is most widely cited by the least democratic states.
Those countries where democracy truly works can join forces with global and local actors for their citizens. It is worth comparing how Finland and Poland have dealt with unnecessary mines in Callio and Turów – the task is simply a affirmative example of multi-level governance, the other This is simply a negative effect of sovereignism.
Only a Europe of networks will be able to supply public goods to citizens in today's borderless digital planet of interdependence. We should jointly consider how to make specified networks transparent, deliberate, responsible, accessible and responsive. In disputes about sovereignty, only natives benefit.
**
Jan Zielonka is simply a prof. of political discipline and global relations at the University of Venice, Ca’ Foscari and the University of Oxford. His latest book is named The Lost Future and How to Reclaim It (Yale University Press, 2023).
The article is simply a joint publication of magazines Social Europe and IPS-Journal. In English she translated Aleksandra Paszkowska.
