Chiti (Democratic Party): “The Council of the EU should be turned into the ‘European Senate’, the Union should become a supranational democracy”

Rome – All the divisions concerning foreign policy, the lack a common strategy for the Mediterranean crisis, the answer given to the emergency of migrants, given “badly” and with “national policies, without solidarity, with walls and armed forces”: these are all signs of a European Union which does not work. “We need to make a step further, going towards a true European supranational democracy, or the risk would be making several steps backwards, putting the extraordinary path we’ve already made at risk.” Vannino Chiti, President of the Committee for European Policies of the Italian Senate, expresses his thoughts, saying that in his opinion the governance of the entire Union should be reviewed – for the Eurozone and the area which is not part of the single currency system too. Even through drastic changes such as the transformation of the Council of the European Union into the Senate of the Union.

President Chiti, yesterday the Commitee approved a resolution committing the government into relaunching the issue of the rediscussed of European Treaties at European level. What should be changed then?

There are two crucial aspects to be tackled – on which I was glad to find a true communion of interests during the meeting held at the Quirinale last Monday, when President Mattarella hosted Italian MEPs. The first issue concerns a true democratic governance of the Euro area, which needs to be realized giving the Eurozone a stable government with a stable Presidency, a Parliamentary core and financial tools as well. It is possible to act swiftly on this, staying within the limits imposed by the Lisbon Treaty and using the instrument of reinforced cooperation.

 What about the second issue?

This concerns the realization of a true supranational European democracy – hence needing a review of the Treaties. It’d be necessary to elect the European Parliament with a single electoral law involving all Member States, or the assembly couldn’t have the strength owned by national parliaments when National States were in full development.

Hence you are imagining a Parliament of the Union as full depositors of the legislative power. Which role them for the European Commission and the Council of the European Union?

The Council of European Union should necessarily become something different: it should turn into the true “Senate of the Union”, with prevailing powers on financial issues of the Union and the entrance of new Member States. One of the crucial problems the European Union is currently experiencing is that the increase of competences transferred to the supranational level is not coupled with a communitarian but with an inter-governmental system. The fact that the Council of the European Union, composed of Heads of State and Government, has become the most important institution – with an excessive weight slowing down the decision all process – can be clearly seen in the management of the migration crisis: it is necessary to reach an agreement among 28 countries, which are going to increase in number, and this contradiction should be removed.

From this point of view, the European Commission could take on increased powers.

The European Commission should become the true federal government of the Union, with a President who could be the candidate proposed by the coalition winning the elections – as it happened at the latest elections with Jean Claude Juncker – but with a stable mechanism; looking forward, the President could also be elected directly by citizens.

Do you think that the negotiations over a possible Brexit could be an opportunity to review the rules, or just a risk for the stability of the Union, with other Member States calling for the same level of “freedom” the UK is calling for?

I do think these negotiations are a fourth incentive towards a serious and comprehensive debate concerning the European governance. The deadline given by the British referendum is a strong trigger indeed. I think no differentiation in regimes could be allowed, and there could be no “ad nationem” regime. Still, there could be two different situations: stronger sovereignty and solidarity bounds for current or future Members of the Euro zone, and more flexible bounds involving less commitment for States out of the single currency system. That said, I really hope that Great Britain will fully stay in the European Union.

Before arriving to this “full supranational democracy”, a two-level Europe then?

We could say it’d be a “two-circle” Europe. A more involving circle for Member States of the Euro zone, with higher solidarity and sovereignty, open to any State willing to enter the single currency system; and an outer circle with less binding duties.

 Dealing with the ‘inner’ circle with the single currency, the European Commission yesterday has approved some proposals for a true Economic and Monetary Union – including a single seat at the IMF, the creation of a European Fiscal Bond, the finishing of the Banking Union with a European Mechanism of deposit assurance. How do you judge these proposals?

These are crucial, real, useful measures. They go towards the right direction, but need other political and institutional measures for being truly implemented. You know, those who’d created the single currency thought that a strong push towards a supranational democracy could have come thanks to the single currency. We’ve seen how this push wasn’t strong enough though. If today, in order to achieve this target, we are not introducing a political solicitation – even a gradual one – well, we’d put at risk the entire idea of the single currency. But the Euro is such a positive force it needs to be equipped with all the other mechanisms of a democratic policy.

 Are you saying the single currency needs a political control?

I don’t think that the ECB should be subject to or conditioned by governments – being them national or at European level. The Central Bank should be autonomous, independent. Still, I do think that the management of the single currency is just one side of the coin. The other is connected with policies the ECB cannot control: fiscal, development, economic allocation policies. This is the missing part.

The are leverages owned by a State – or a Federation of States – for governing the economy. But the possibility of issuing a currency is among their powers too. Could a supranational European democracy work when even this last leverage is taken out of the political control?

Well, this model is already applied in the U.S., there’s nothing new to discover about it. The ECB is not the FED – yet – and the governance model of the Euro zone is not the federal model applied in the U.S. The American models the one we need to follow, we don’t need to com up with any invention. I think that, given the current situation, with the degree and the level of the political power in Europe and the competences in the ECB’s mandate, Draghi has done true miracles to save the single currency – he’s saved the Euro and the European Union as well. It is now time to equip the Union with tools which aren’t unknown but required to make a much needed step further.