Writing in the Financial Times, liberal leader in the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt and his colleague and fellow contributor to this new book Daniel Cohn-Bendit (leader of the Greens) set out their vision for the future of the EU after the Eurozone crisis:
The crisis has shown up the key weaknesses in economic governance at EU level where a monetary policy was introduced without a parallel fiscal policy. Unlike other global currencies such as the dollar or yen, the euro depends on 17 different economic strategies and bond markets, no common treasury, no common debt issuance and no common banking supervisor. This explains, to a large extent, why the bond markets extort higher interest rates from eurozone countries than from the US or Japan despite lower levels of public debt. Some of these lacunae are being addressed but progress is slow and consensus on a common vision remains elusive.
This vision should be based on a federal structure, defined and agreed in a new, concise constitutional document to be drawn up by the next European parliament in conjunction with the European Council of Ministers and submitted to a referendum across the EU. The “f” word has been much maligned, yet many member states are federal structures. It is perfectly possible, for example, to be Flemish, Belgian and European all at the same time. In an increasingly post-national world, where the global economy is driven by big trading blocs and emerging markets, the European nation states of the 19th century lack economic and political clout. The make-up of the G8 in 2030 will probably look different from today. Sovereignty is better pooled at European level than lost at the global level.
However, the EU struggles to win the hearts and minds of the public. Although the European parliament has legitimacy through direct elections, it still lacks credibility with many voters who do not feel motivated to vote for their MEPs. The five-yearly European elections are treated largely as national referendums on the government in office rather than a chance to debate the political choices to deal with transnational issues such as climate change or immigration. National governments have a predilection for blaming Brussels for everything that goes wrong while claiming credit for everything that goes right. There needs to be a sea change at all levels of public consciousness: European parties must make a greater effort to mount EU-wide campaigns and address the challenges we face as a union of 500m citizens rather than as just 27 separate national entities.
The next European parliament, to be elected in June 2014, should become a constituent assembly whose chief responsibility would be to draw up a draft constitution, in agreement with the council of ministers. The text should be short and concise (unlike the last attempt) and confine itself to constitutional aspects of EU governance. It should be submitted to a referendum simultaneously across all countries of the union. Individual states could then also determine if they wish to be part of it. That is not only democratic but would force all countries to confront the issue of Europe head on and no longer hide in the shadows. The current state of muddling along is only creating friction and failing to deal with pressing policy matters.
You can read the authors’ full piece here.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Shropshire zoo seeks runaway 'beloved' capybara
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Graham Jeffs
Simon R
John Waller
Steve Trevethan
Chris Moore
3 Comments
” It is perfectly possible, for example, to be Flemish, Belgian and European all at the same time.”
So it is, in Belgium.
While I totally agree that the euro-core needs to converge into a federal structure via an EU constitutional treaty, you need to understand two things:
1. The new treaty must leave extra-euro nations as viable sovereign nation-states. Reduce Britain to a dependent and we will leave.
2. The new treaty must allow the exit of euro members than cannot accept a converged federal structure. Force the issue and watch it get vetoed.
Best of luck. 🙂
You write : “Sovereignty is better pooled at European level than lost at the global level.”
My understanding of the definition of Sovereignty is : Supreme dominance, power or rule through legal authority.
Why then, do LibDems create such a ballyhoo about an elected House of Lords, when sovereignty at European level would (by definition!), render both the Commons and the House of Lords as little more than powerless talking shops anyway?
Also, I cannot grasp where, how, why, we have lost sovereignty at global level. The fact is, if we [UK], as a nation can build (it) or provide (it), and the world wants (it), they will buy (it). We simply, don’t need a bloated EU middleman getting fat on his 10% for doing nothing.
There is an oft quoted remark that 40% of our trade is to the Eurozone. Have you noticed that whenever Cameron travels to the wider world outside of Europe, that he takes a platoon of businessmen/women, with him to put business boots on the ground. He even mentioned it in his conference speech. He (or more likely his adviser), is clearly, not relying on the EU coming out of Intensive Care, anytime soon, and is actively building contacts, and contracts, without Mr EU 10%, who frankly just extorts more money each year (via EU budget), to bloat his EU pension.
You further write, with regard to a draft constitution on EU governance,
” Individual states could then also determine if they wish to be part of it.”
Which is exactly what is being asked for by UKIP, and is exactly why they are in the ascendant, and LibDems are falling like a stone.
A referendum WILL come, despite ALL political leaders best attempts, to block, obfuscate, stall and deny the electorate their democratic right of self determination.
The crisis has shown up the key weaknesses in economic governance … ”
Too right! The euro project was flawed from the beginning as many observed at the time. It never had even remotely adequate mechanisms to handle the strains that would inevitably occur in a group of very different countries and economies and there was wilful blindness about this. Then, almost as soon as it started big countries started breaking the rules with no sanctions applied soon thereafter followed by smaller countries – the perfect receipe for anarchy.
“In an increasingly post-national world, where the global economy is driven by big trading blocs …
That’s the trouble; the default assumption is that everything should be run for powerful economic actors. Actually, things should be run for people. Can we have a Europe at least that’s driven by democracy?
“…consensus on a common vision remains elusive.
‘Elusive’ should read ‘competely absent’. The best idea so far is to keep on doing the things that have already failed – which was Einstein’s definition of insanity.
“This vision should be based on a federal structure…”
Good luck with that! ‘Federal’ works like a red rag to a bull for Conservatives and some others. The EU is hoist with its own petard here in that it has utterly failed to develop any sensible concept of what it, uniquely, should do and what it should leave well alone for countries to do. Instead, under the banner of ‘ever greater union’ it has reliably acted as if it’s real agenda is empire building by eurocrats. This very bad plan is cheered on by those in love with a fantasy quite detached from the reality.
“Although the European parliament has legitimacy through direct elections,”
It would have more if it did not ask small nations to vote again when they got the ‘wrong’ result in referenda and denied small nations the chance to have a referendum at all on vital issues. In Britain it turns out that LD candidates for euroelections have been instructed not to discuss the EU in some past campaigns.
Despite everything, there are things to like in this piece – particularly the awarenss, however belated, that something has to change. We are at a crossroads; on the one hand we could loose the whole project very easily for a generation or more; on the other we could trump the failed thinking of the Euro-establishment with fresh thinking. But to do that liberals need to stop being cheerleaders for a broken and corrupt system and advance their own thinking on a pan-European basis.
As a hint I think the EU should signal very clearly that in future it intends to do only a minimal list of things that ALL member countries agree should be handled on a pan-European basis. That would mean giving up a lot – like the CAP which I seem to remember is up for revising in any case next year. Only with such powerful gestures does it have a chance of clawing back lost legitimacy.