It’s a good idea, but unlikely to happen. European states have irreconcilable differences in interests. The fact that the UK, a country which repudiated the EU, proved the most responsive to the Ukraine crises represents what a pipe dream a united Europe is. Poland requesting US troops as opposed to going to other EU states was a damning moment.
How about no?
I am all for moving towards more common policies over time, but there’s absolutely no need or will to do it in all aspects, let alone relinquish the sovereignty that many nations have fought long and hard for. Do not forget that many joined the EU exactly because it was seen as the best guarantee to defend their independence.
“Former prime ministers”. People no longer in office can say whatever gibberish without consequences.
>To continue reading this article, please sign in.
>
>Registration is free and means we will be able to offer you the most relevant content.
🙁
For anyone hitting a paywall, the article text:
*Ahead of the summit of EU leaders in Granada this week, 32 former high-level politicians, EU officials and economists published a manifesto for “the European Union at the Time of the New Cold War”, calling for a central fiscal capacity for the EU, the completion of the Banking Union and Capital Markets Union, a shift to a new EU “business model” and institutional reforms.*
The signatories, who include former EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, former European Council president Herman van Rompuy, former Italian prime Mministers Romano Prodi and Mario Monti, argue for a “gradual and pragmatic federalism.”
“The time has come to acknowledge that nationalism is contrary to the national interest, that Member States’ national sovereignty is ineffective unless it is redefined in terms of European sovereignty, and that the supply of European Public Goods is crucial to satisfy national demands for economic, social, and political security,” the manifesto argues.
**Capital Markets Union**
Looking at the challenge for European industries to adapt to the technological changes, a lot of money will be needed, according to the signatories, encompassing economists like Jean Pisani-Ferry and former central banker Erkki Liikanen.
“Reaching the technological frontier will require mobilising private and public resources that no Member State can do alone,” they write, arguing for the completion of the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union.
According to the signatories, what is needed is “a decisive move towards the construction of integrated and deep European financial markets based on the issuance of a European safe asset and the definition of a fully-fledged crisis management system.”
The need for a European Safe Asset and further fiscal integration to achieve a Capital Markets Union has recently also been put forward by the leadership of the European Central Bank, namely Fabio Panetta and Christine Lagarde.
**Fiscal Union**
The manifesto also hails the EU’s reaction to the pandemic with its recovery fund as a positive step, especially compared to the European approach to crises in the previous decade.
However, it criticises that the fact that the EU can only go for common solutions in times of crisis made the institutional structure very fragile and argues for a more stable regulatory framework.
For this, the manifesto also brings back the call for achieving a Fiscal Union: “Short of that, the EU will not be successful in pursuing its green and digital agendas and will continue to be at the mercy of external events, thus remaining vulnerable domestically and on the global scene.”
According to the signatories, stable EU funds underpinned by proper revenue streams will also be needed to ensure European security in light of the Russian invasion.
“Joining up forces and funds at the EU level will be needed to meet the immense task of reconstructing Ukraine,” the manifesto argues, saying that “moving towards strategic autonomy will require pooling sovereignty at EU level in defence and security.”
Especially in light of the US presidential elections next year, in which Donald Trump seems to stand a good chance of winning, the EU should be ready for a much more isolationist US that does not care much about European security.
**Made with Europe**
The signatories also refer to Europe’s current industrial challenges in light of Chinese and US industrial policies, warning of an uncoordinated subsidy race among European countries that is currently undermining the single market.
In their view, instead of trying to bring entire value chains back to Europe, the EU should focus on parts of it where it has a strategic advantage, for example, due to its highly educated and well-trained workforce.
“[T]he goal should not be ‘made in Europe’, but ‘made with Europe’,” the manifesto argues.
This goes in a direction that has also been advocated by Tobias Gehrke and Julian Ringhof, geoeconomics specialists at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). In a recent article, they call for the EU to secure “leadership in specific technologies that are vital to key supply chains and the global economy as a whole” instead of aiming for leadership in entire sectors.
**Ways forward**
To move forward to this “gradual and pragmatic federalism”, the manifesto also wants to reform the voting system in the EU Council. In some critical areas like foreign affairs and tax issues, member state governments can only decide unanimously.
The manifesto calls for “flexible ways to allow isolated dissent not to become a veto, whilst at the same time protecting the dissenting member from the effects of the decision.”
Moreover, as institutional reform is so difficult to achieve, it should be possible to “proceed with variable geometry and Member States’ clubs”.
Finally, the signatories of the manifesto hope their ideas could be taken up and debated in the European elections next year.
Let’s go!!!! 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
Let’s fucking gooooooo
Better dead than ~~Red~~ Blue.
The same politicians that missed a chance in the 90s to go that route and make it a fair deal for small and medium-sized member states? It’s also quite sad that the EU parliament remains a powerless clownshow and waste of resources.
The current multiplicity of crises will probably break the EU’s neck. Poland, Slovakia and Hungary are already defying the EU’s trade competency. The future looks to be dissolution, like what happened with the Soviet Union.
From an outside perspective this sounds good Europe needs to protect itself now more than ever
One day. Not today , not tomorow but one day.
I understand people who want EU centralization, I understand people who don’t.
I understand people who want the EU to possess the means and will to stand alone militarily, diplomatically, and economically, and I understand people who don’t believe this is a priority.
What I fail to understand is people who believe that the EU can and should achieve significantly greater military, geopolitical, and economic autonomy yet believe this can and should be achieved without EU centralization.
These people certainly exist, yet I simply don’t understand how someone can logically consider that a realistic possibility.
15 comments
Called it.
how about no
EDIT: why the downvotes ?
One of the reasons I voted for brexit.
It’s a good idea, but unlikely to happen. European states have irreconcilable differences in interests. The fact that the UK, a country which repudiated the EU, proved the most responsive to the Ukraine crises represents what a pipe dream a united Europe is. Poland requesting US troops as opposed to going to other EU states was a damning moment.
How about no?
I am all for moving towards more common policies over time, but there’s absolutely no need or will to do it in all aspects, let alone relinquish the sovereignty that many nations have fought long and hard for. Do not forget that many joined the EU exactly because it was seen as the best guarantee to defend their independence.
“Former prime ministers”. People no longer in office can say whatever gibberish without consequences.
>To continue reading this article, please sign in.
>
>Registration is free and means we will be able to offer you the most relevant content.
🙁
For anyone hitting a paywall, the article text:
*Ahead of the summit of EU leaders in Granada this week, 32 former high-level politicians, EU officials and economists published a manifesto for “the European Union at the Time of the New Cold War”, calling for a central fiscal capacity for the EU, the completion of the Banking Union and Capital Markets Union, a shift to a new EU “business model” and institutional reforms.*
The signatories, who include former EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, former European Council president Herman van Rompuy, former Italian prime Mministers Romano Prodi and Mario Monti, argue for a “gradual and pragmatic federalism.”
“The time has come to acknowledge that nationalism is contrary to the national interest, that Member States’ national sovereignty is ineffective unless it is redefined in terms of European sovereignty, and that the supply of European Public Goods is crucial to satisfy national demands for economic, social, and political security,” the manifesto argues.
**Capital Markets Union**
Looking at the challenge for European industries to adapt to the technological changes, a lot of money will be needed, according to the signatories, encompassing economists like Jean Pisani-Ferry and former central banker Erkki Liikanen.
“Reaching the technological frontier will require mobilising private and public resources that no Member State can do alone,” they write, arguing for the completion of the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union.
According to the signatories, what is needed is “a decisive move towards the construction of integrated and deep European financial markets based on the issuance of a European safe asset and the definition of a fully-fledged crisis management system.”
The need for a European Safe Asset and further fiscal integration to achieve a Capital Markets Union has recently also been put forward by the leadership of the European Central Bank, namely Fabio Panetta and Christine Lagarde.
**Fiscal Union**
The manifesto also hails the EU’s reaction to the pandemic with its recovery fund as a positive step, especially compared to the European approach to crises in the previous decade.
However, it criticises that the fact that the EU can only go for common solutions in times of crisis made the institutional structure very fragile and argues for a more stable regulatory framework.
For this, the manifesto also brings back the call for achieving a Fiscal Union: “Short of that, the EU will not be successful in pursuing its green and digital agendas and will continue to be at the mercy of external events, thus remaining vulnerable domestically and on the global scene.”
According to the signatories, stable EU funds underpinned by proper revenue streams will also be needed to ensure European security in light of the Russian invasion.
“Joining up forces and funds at the EU level will be needed to meet the immense task of reconstructing Ukraine,” the manifesto argues, saying that “moving towards strategic autonomy will require pooling sovereignty at EU level in defence and security.”
Especially in light of the US presidential elections next year, in which Donald Trump seems to stand a good chance of winning, the EU should be ready for a much more isolationist US that does not care much about European security.
**Made with Europe**
The signatories also refer to Europe’s current industrial challenges in light of Chinese and US industrial policies, warning of an uncoordinated subsidy race among European countries that is currently undermining the single market.
In their view, instead of trying to bring entire value chains back to Europe, the EU should focus on parts of it where it has a strategic advantage, for example, due to its highly educated and well-trained workforce.
“[T]he goal should not be ‘made in Europe’, but ‘made with Europe’,” the manifesto argues.
This goes in a direction that has also been advocated by Tobias Gehrke and Julian Ringhof, geoeconomics specialists at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). In a recent article, they call for the EU to secure “leadership in specific technologies that are vital to key supply chains and the global economy as a whole” instead of aiming for leadership in entire sectors.
**Ways forward**
To move forward to this “gradual and pragmatic federalism”, the manifesto also wants to reform the voting system in the EU Council. In some critical areas like foreign affairs and tax issues, member state governments can only decide unanimously.
The manifesto calls for “flexible ways to allow isolated dissent not to become a veto, whilst at the same time protecting the dissenting member from the effects of the decision.”
Moreover, as institutional reform is so difficult to achieve, it should be possible to “proceed with variable geometry and Member States’ clubs”.
Finally, the signatories of the manifesto hope their ideas could be taken up and debated in the European elections next year.
Let’s go!!!! 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
Let’s fucking gooooooo
Better dead than ~~Red~~ Blue.
The same politicians that missed a chance in the 90s to go that route and make it a fair deal for small and medium-sized member states? It’s also quite sad that the EU parliament remains a powerless clownshow and waste of resources.
The current multiplicity of crises will probably break the EU’s neck. Poland, Slovakia and Hungary are already defying the EU’s trade competency. The future looks to be dissolution, like what happened with the Soviet Union.
From an outside perspective this sounds good Europe needs to protect itself now more than ever
One day. Not today , not tomorow but one day.
I understand people who want EU centralization, I understand people who don’t.
I understand people who want the EU to possess the means and will to stand alone militarily, diplomatically, and economically, and I understand people who don’t believe this is a priority.
What I fail to understand is people who believe that the EU can and should achieve significantly greater military, geopolitical, and economic autonomy yet believe this can and should be achieved without EU centralization.
These people certainly exist, yet I simply don’t understand how someone can logically consider that a realistic possibility.