Making Europe by making the Europeans

by Eunews and Giampaolo Rossi

The Observatory on EU Reform Proposals (Osservatorio sulle proposte di riforma dell’Unione europea) is a new Italian think tank that aims to gather the various proposals for institutional reform of the EU developed at the national and international level. Several academics are committed to following the reform process in the various fields; others to finding the significant proposals; others to following the debate and providing comments. The Observatory is coordinated by the professor Giampaolo Rossi, while the collection and processing of the information is coordinated by Francesco Grassi. Those wishing to send communications to the Observatory can do so via the address: osservatorioeuropa@ridiam.it.

To better understand the nature and purpose of the project we have asked a few questions to its coordinator, Giampaolo Rossi. 

Prof. Rossi, your project aims to stimulate the debate on the reform of the European Union, particularly in Italy. In your opinion, why has the debate in our country been relatively sluggish so far?

The debate on the reform of the European Union has been sluggish because there is a lack of awareness at the political and cultural level of the new dimension that problems have taken. We live in a horizon that rarely goes beyond our country’s borders. There is a clear imbalance between the attention given to the reform of national institutions and the reform of the European institutions. But the debate has been weak in other countries as well, where it has stopped at preliminary issues (for/against the euro, eurobonds and little more) and superficial proposals.

Why has Italy been relatively ineffective in asserting its rights at the European level (on migrants, fiscal austerity, etc.)? Is it a problem of intellectual weakness, political weakness or something else?

Ineffectiveness comes first of all from an attitude towards Europe that is either totally acquiescent and uncritical or vindictive. It wouldn’t be this way if we felt protagonists of the Union, just like the big countries.

Is your project primarily aimed at fueling the debate within academia and civil society or at influencing policymakers?

Both. The project must involve culture and civil society no less than politics. You cannot “do Europe without the Europeans” as in the past Italy was created before the Italians. We have only recently started “making the Europeans”, above all with the Erasmus projects, which must be multiplied, as called for in Macron’s program.

You recognize in the project’s presentation that “the number of proposals and ideas concerning the Union has now become overwhelming”. Yet, despite this, the reform process has been extremely slow, and where it has taken place, it has often been of a regressive nature vis-à-vis the Maastricht system (see, for example, the Fiscal Compact). The impression is that the problem is not the lack of proposals and ideas but the lack of political will. What makes you think that yet another think tank – whose ideas are likely to fall on deaf ears – is what Europe and Italy need?

The proposals abound, it’s true, but often they are not well coordinated with the institutional context in which they are introduced. More often than not, they are isolated one from another and there is no real confrontation aimed at identifying convergences and divergences, and at forcing political forces to take responsibility for their choices. Thus these proposals never approach the operational phase, and even the measures that are foreseen in the treaties (and subsequent agreements) end up not being implemented. It is easier making a new law than realizing a concrete reform, when you have to change people’s positions and behaviours, and you have to spend money which will not be spent elsewhere. This is the kind of political will that has often lacked in the past. It is true, therefore, that the central problem is the lack of political will but, to stimulate it, one has to move forward in the deepening of the proposals.

Even if the Italian political class were to take up your proposal, don’t you think that these would collide with the intransigence of the German political class, which doesn’t seem intent on budging on many of the issues that are crucial for the virtuous evolution of the European Union and eurozone (eurobonds, a real European Treasury with an adequate budget, etc.)? Surveys also say that the “austere” ideology of the German political class is widely supported by German society. How do you think this “obstacle” can be circumvented? Is it necessary to open up a dialogue with those in Germany that share your ideas or do you believe that it is necessary for the Italian and periphery elites in general to “raise their voice”?

Even this limit on behalf of a part of the German public opinion is favoured by the fact that the debate remains at the preliminary stage. It is rather obvious: if everyone remains anchored to their positions, it is pointless to seek agreement with others. I think a large part of Germany’s public opinion understands this, and Merkel has also shown many times to have far-sightedness in this respect. No one is asking the Germans to make sacrifices, but simply to understand that in some cases 2 plus 2 makes 5, or even 22: in a world in which the players are getting larger and larger, coming together makes everyone stronger. Besides, it’s always been this way, and the Germans, which unified relatively late, know this better than anyone else. Only with a united Europe can each of its component sustain the international competition and make a positive contribution to the world.

Even if your proposals were taken up at the political level, the impression is that they would clash with the hostility of a large segment of the European populations – especially in the countries of the periphery – to the idea of ceding greater national sovereignty to Europe. How would you go about solving this problem?

The public’s hostility to Europe derives in part from an understandable cultural delay: it is not easy to understand when the external context requires a change and makes any hope of continuing as before or even going back illusory. Sovereignty has been lost by all states, especially by the small ones, due to technological developments that make it impossible to solve large problems at the local level. We must thus move from “lost sovereignty” to “recovered and shared sovereignty” through Europe. Macron understands this well. Hostility, however, finds fertile ground in an inadequate construction of Europe, which at times is unnecessarily invasive and absent on important issues (Syria and immigration, for example), aimed primarily at regulating competition between member states rather than projecting itself onto the international scene and giving answers to people’s problems (security, employment, welfare). The Union has begun to change its policies for some years now. The Commission and the Parliament (with what little powers it has) are very active. If they can get the public to understand that they are on their side, public attitudes to Europe will become more favourable.

Are you in favor of changing the treaties or, as several authors have argued, do you think that the reforms that you call for can also be implemented within the framework of the existing treaties?

An amendment to the treaties is needed to resolve the problem of democratic deficit. The European Parliament does not lack democratic legitimacy, but there is not an adequate correlation between representation and power, with the paradox that the European institutions are perceived as representatives without powers or as powers without democratic legitimacy. We don’t need to rush through massive treaty reforms; we just need specific amendments, preceded by a strengthening of European policies in favour of the people. Many reforms can be done, and are being done, even within the current legal framework. They can be started by a group of countries that pave the way for the others. However, there is a limit to the extent to which the existing rules can be bent. Proposal such as Piketty’s, which propose to duplicate the organs by emptying the existing ones, would lead to conflicting outcomes that Europe does not need at the moment. It is necessary to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament and to increase the direct relations between the European bodies and the people.

The impression is that a deep fracture is emerging between Germany and the United States. How do you think this will affect the EU’s reform process?

As long as the US supported the European Union and protected it at its own expense under its military umbrella, there was no strong incentive to resume the unification process. We European citizens do not like Brexit or a strained relationship with the American administration. It almost seems that the Anglo-Saxon world, accustomed to holding a pre-eminent position in the world for a long time, refuses to accepts accept an equal relationship with other countries and tends to close itself up, with the risk of declining even further. If that were the case, it would be one more reason to push for greater unity in Europe.