| Joshka Fischer's speech
attracted so much attention not because he said anything particularly
new, but because of the context in which he delivered it. Here was
a German foreign minister proclaiming the need for greater federalism
in Europe, speaking in a historic setting in the new capital of a
reunified Germany. Fischer insisted that he was talking in a personal
capacity, not an official one. Yet this fact gave what he had to say
even greater weight, because he was "speaking frankly."
Fischer set out his stall in a cogent and effective
way. With the coming of the Euro, the economic integration of Europe
is more or less complete. What remains is to complement it with
greater political integration. How else in the longer run can the
European Union tackle its problems? Enlargement might eventually
double the current EU membership. The EU is marked by its notorious
democratic deficit, which seems to be producing declining levels
of public support in member countries for its aims and policies.
Monnet, Schumann and the other early founders of the EU dreamed
of a society that would overcome the divisions that had led to two
world wars. As Fischer points out, they foresaw that such developments
should encompass East as well as Western Europe. The time has come
to move towards making that vision a reality.
Progress towards a federal Europe, Fischer made clear,
should depend in the future, as it has in the past, upon Franco-German
collaboration. France and Germany have been the vanguard through
each of the main phases of development of the Union. The next stage,
enlargement and political integration, will in his words also "depend
decisively on France and Germany". After all, it was largely
the enmity of these two countries that sparked the great wars.
I write as someone strongly committed to the EU.
Yet I don't believe that we should be thinking along the lines Fischer
advocates. We need a different model of the future of Europe today
from the federalist one, for reasons I shall try to spell out in
what follows. Neither of the two main models of the EU - federalism
or a minimalist free-market - offer appropriate means of thinking
about either what the EU is or what it should become.
I think British intellectuals and policy-makers could
make some contribution to working out what such a future for Europe
might involve. At first sight this looks an unlikely proposition.
The British famously have been the 'reluctant Europeans'. The UK
has not as yet adopted the Euro and the majority of the population
is at best indifferent towards Europe.
Yet Britain has been the source of some of the most
lively thinking in politics in recent years, at least so far as
the centre-left is concerned. Effective analysis of the big changes
affecting our lives, such as globalisation and the advent of the
new economy, began earlier in the UK than in most other countries.
So also did the attempt to create a framework of policy response
to these transformations, in the shape of third way politics. The
term 'third way' has by no means been universally adopted. But the
basic ideas and policies which that term subsumes have been taken
up by left of centre parties almost everywhere.
Ideas about the likely development of the EU, of
course, do not break down cleanly along a left-right dimension.
Thus, federalist views have been supported by Continental politicians
and parties from both left and right. However a 'third way view'
of Europe should stem from the same considerations that underlie
the wider political debate - the need to respond to far-reaching
processes of social and economic change.
Fischer said he looked for an alternative term to
'federalism', but in the end used it because he couldn't find one.
The main reason he seemed to give for seeking a different concept
is that talk of a 'federal Europe' doesn't go down too well in some
countries - most notably, Britain. However, there are much more
important reasons why 'federalism' is an inappropriate term:
1. It
implies that further political integration in EU should move Europe
in the direction of forming a state, with the institutions appropriate
to such a political order. But one doesn't have to be a Eurosceptic
to see that the EU is not a state at all, and will never become
one. It is (or should now be seen as) a new form of supranational
authority, characterised by a voluntary sharing of aspects of sovereignty.
2. Talk of federalism always encourages comparison
with the US. In a widely-syndicated debate with Jean-Pierre Chevenèment,
which followed on from his Berlin speech, Fischer cites the US as
his basis for thinking about the future of Europe. Larry Siedentop's
influential recent book, Democracy in Europe, does much the
same. But there are no close parallels. James Madison and his fellow
constitution-builders were creating a sovereign state, whereas the
EU is seeking to help transform sovereignty in a newly interdependent
world.
3. The EU, as Fischer accepts, is founded upon
"a rejection of the European balance of power principle"
that used to prevail. In the age of globalisation, cosmopolitan
cooperation has to be the prime force in the world order. However,
talk of federalism can easily imply readmitting power politics by
the back door - creating a balance of power on a larger scale. The
point of the EU should not be to counter the dominance of the US,
but to help tie the United States into a wider cosmopolitan order.
|
