Debate on the direction of improvement of the European Union returns with a fresh force. The contributions of the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the planned reforms of the interior marketplace and capital markets, are interpreted by any commentators as a further step towards deeper integration and even the construction of a quasi-federal ‘superstate’. It is worth examining these proposals from the position of defending national sovereignty and subsidiarity.
The Head of the EC calls for a faster centralisation of the EU within the superstate. According to the media, the EC president underlines the request for "strong regulatory arrangements" and harmonisation of rules in the associate States. It points, among another things, to the fragmentation of financial markets and legal differences that hinder business activity. In its view, Europe needs 1 large and liquid capital market, and if the consent of all countries is not achieved, integration can be deepened in smaller groups of countries.
Integration advocates argue that simplification will increase competitiveness towards the US and China, and a deeper single marketplace will make better usage of Europe's immense savings. The European Commission plans to accelerate the construction of the alleged Union of Savings and Investments and to strengthen financial supervision in order to mobilise capital and facilitate cross-border economical activity.
However, a number of doubts arise from the national perspective. Firstly, the centralisation of financial or regulatory competences may mean limiting the ability to conduct its own economical policy. If supervision and standards are increasingly transferred to EU level, national governments will lose part of the impact on local improvement models. Harmonisation, although presented as a tool for combating bureaucracy, can in practice lead to harmonisation of solutions that do not always correspond to the circumstantial characteristics of individual economies.
Secondly, the thought of "enhanced cooperation", i.e. deepening integration by any countries, poses a hazard of a Europe of many speeds. specified a script can marginalise skeptical countries towards further centralisation, forcing them to choose between losing influence and adopting regulations that have not been agreed unanimously.
Another issue is the balance between economical efficiency and democratic control. Moving decisions to a supranational level can distance the legislative process from citizens and national parliaments. From the position of sovereign supporters, this means the hazard of a "democratic deficit" in which key economical decisions are taken in Brussels alternatively than in the capitals of the associate States.
It is besides worth noting that the argument about the request for centralisation in order to "increase competitiveness" is not the only possible way. Flexible cooperation between countries with broad regulatory autonomy can be an alternative. The diversity of economical models in Europe is simply a origin of innovation and resilience to crises, not just a barrier to the improvement of the single market.
In summary, the current plans to deepen EU economical integration can be interpreted as a step towards greater centralisation and the elimination of sovereignty. Although the aim of EU centralists is to "simplification" and "increase competitiveness", they rise serious questions about the future of national sovereignty.
We besides recommend: British agency falsified meteo data to satisfy climate lobby
