Europe : Culture, Civilization, and Politics
Europe is first and foremost a civilization. It is currently flourishing within the European Union.
The European Union is constantly under attack : too powerful for some, yet not powerful enough for others. Everyone criticizes its actions. Its lack of solidarity is noted, but without a willingness to abide by common rules on-site. Its lack of direction is lamented, but without submitting to the rule of the majority. A resurgence of nationalism rediscovers its inherent aversion to foreigners. An oversimplified sovereigntism confounds it with mere cooperation and imagines that separate states would be stronger.
No one seems capable of igniting a movement of cohesion anymore. Opinions are divided regarding resistance to the American influence, with treachery becoming the norm. However, Russian imperialism leaves no room for evasion.
Within its own borders, Germany is increasingly isolated and less willing to acknowledge what it owes to others.
All agree on weakening the embryo of European power. This is why the European Parliament elections do not become the subject of a European debate. (1)
We act as if recreating European solidarity were easy, as if building the union could be restarted on different foundations. But this overlooks the incredible exception in history that this sharing of sovereignty represents, and the miracle of its implementation. Nothing comparable to the Schuman Plan (2) has ever happened. Our dear leaders regularly call for Union, for their party, for the Nation, and for Europe. One must wonder why it isn't being realized. Therefore, the advantages of dispersion shouldn't be underestimated: diversity of opinions (tolerance), flexibility of fighters (adaptability), diversity of Nations (culture). Certainly, there are whimsical elements and hidden mafias, but one must also fight against the urge to level everything, starting with the mind, as André Breton used to say.
There is no Europe's phone number, but that doesn't always make it weaker. This weakness is also a flexibility.
The question of sovereignty is regularly posed against the European Union, just as it is against the United Nations in the United States. But the need for these organizations predates them. The exchanges of the modern world have imposed a federalist approach to sovereign matters for over a century. Numerous economic, social, and political organizations operate through vertical coordination, but this requires clarity and advocates for the public cause.
The European construction must always be defended. It's challenging to defend what already exists, and that's the primary reason for this chorus of anti-Europeans. However, Europe is not yet complete ; it's a political project that still needs to be realized. This project has deftly navigated politics by creating "de facto solidarities" (Robert Schuman) on economic fronts, which were intended to facilitate political collaboration. Too political for some, it's too economic for others, and sometimes even for the same people who aren't afraid of contradictions.
The European construction is something extraordinary : it's the only time in human history that nations have shared sovereignty, and in a peaceful manner. This treasure of humanity must be defended and pursued, but it's not so simple. Let's remember the desperate efforts of the previous century. Nowhere else is there a model. Nowhere else has there been a similar success. It was already challenging with 6 nations; how will we achieve it with 27 ?
Brexit shows us the danger of Europe becoming a pawn in domestic politics. This is evident with the rise of populism..
One of their arguments might be that European leaders are not elected, but that's false. Whether in the Commission or the ECB, members are elected by national officials and under the oversight of the Parliament. Not all elections are direct, and indirect elections are no less democratic, even if the media doesn't favor them due to their complexity.
Multi-tiered elections are sometimes preferable to direct suffrage; they are less dependent on spectacle, more representative of the different components of society, and they put leaders in touch with their peers. Understanding contradictions, they are fundamentally more democratic (and less demagogic).
Let's remind ourselves: the President of the European Commission was elected by the Council members and subsequently by the Parliament.
On the subject of rejection votes: when it's a "no," it's a "no." When a girl says "no," it truly means "no," and when the outcome of a referendum is a "no," it isn't a "yes." A marvel of our post-modern politics that frequently betrays popular choices after having organized them.
We will try to draw parallels between the various rejections of Europe, but the contexts are different. The European construction will have experienced, amidst numerous crises, three major refusals : firstly, the rejection of the CED in 1954, an alliance between the French extreme left (the communist party of the time, in radical opposition to the Cold War behind Moscow) and the right-wing extremists of the era (the Gaullists who sought to maintain the colonial empire) ; secondly, the 2005 rejection, without a true stake (who knows how a constitution functions ?), which brought together those who were against Europe, those who were against Chirac, those who were against Hollande, as well as a few enthusiasts who believed in a plan B (3); and finally, the disillusioned of today, with Brexit.
Each time, there's ambiguity in form and clarity in substance. Already, we can distance true democracy both with the positioning of parties in the French 4th republic and the expression of referendums, where the questions posed are always intricate and the calculations of those who pose them transparent, causing us to never truly know if the people are responding to one or the other. The spectacular power of referendums and direct elections presents an opportunity for all demagogues. For instance, opponents of Juncker's mandatory migrant intake ("quotas") are those who reject social diversity, gender equality, the fight against discrimination...
Democracy was able to resolve itself through a vote when, in the Greek city-states, an educated assembly would choose one speaker's side over another. It is not present in a poll, nor in an answer to a question that citizens do not ask themselves.
Are we ready for European budgetary discipline ? It's the moment to link economics and politics, to pose the questions of fiscal, budgetary, and social harmonization within the Eurogroup. The current challenges leave little room for maneuver. Let's hope that we will have capable individuals to resolve them, and that the media will be a bit less caricatural, with their poor and kind Greeks and their tough and mean Germans. Maturity comes at a cost, and only mature peoples deserve their democracy.
The European Union was built in various ways, and one of the recent methods is no longer effective: the one that consisted of setting obligations and letting subsequent governments fulfill them. The referendums of 2005, 2015, and 2016 allowed nationalists to oppose supranationality. They provided them with a platform and a foundation they could not have hoped for on their own. It is not democratic to consider oneself humiliated by a common discipline that one has accepted. The current refusals of solidarity visible among Catalan or Flemish separatists cannot be European. Europe has revealed the growing distance between national governments and their people.
It will be necessary to sort out those who claim to be European from those who prove it. Opportunities, whether it's the sovereign debt crisis, ecology, migratory pressure, terrorist or Russian threats, abound. To all these people, whether from Brussels or elsewhere, it's up to them to propose and lead. We must not despair of the people. And if a part breaks away, we shouldn't try to hold it back at all costs. Cohesion has its strength; it is attractive enough. European democracy is primarily about explanation: the leaders are all elected. In France, indirect suffrage is scorned, but one must be careful about interpreting simple people, who are not unintelligent for that matter. Similarly, this constant refrain about the ugly Brussels bureaucracy needs to be continually corrected. This chant that nationalists, whether English or from elsewhere, repeat and have journalists repeat will eventually have its effect, just as the so-called refined anti-Semitism of the 19th century did.
After claiming that "Europe is peace," the media now teach us the opposite : Peace being ensured by the American umbrella, it's what allowed Europe. It sounds logical. Yet, without the Franco-German reconciliation, European states, even within NATO, would be in rivalrous relations as we see, for example, between Greece and Turkey.
Among the enemies of Europe, there are the "maximalists" who only want a union with the entire world. To take the European miracle, the collaboration between two entities as different as Germany and France, as a step already achieved in human history is to be out of touch with reality. Europe is based on a common civilization ; its mission is not to expand to the entire world and must therefore assert its uniqueness. This ambition already surpasses that of many states within it. The slow and necessary coordination of humanity should not be mixed up with European construction. While Europe can serve as an example, its success is crucial.
Europe, like democracy, is an incredible invention, and in fact, many do not believe in them. If they disappear, they will become mere myths, their existence questioned.
Accepting the project's limitations is necessary for its ambition. Europe has a location. It has its territory and its history. We see that countries like Turkey and Russia serve as bridges between Europe and another world. There is no Eurasia : it's a chimera that implies the nonexistence of Europe (4). Acknowledging the boundaries is essential if we want to be able to open them.
Critique of European policy is necessary. "Free competition" doesn't unite a people, but rather consumers. Europe will face challenges that require more intense coordination and discipline. If the institutions do not adapt, the union will face difficult times.
The ailment of Europe is its fragmentation. Its survival lies in the tendency towards unity. It demands the transcending of competition.
The deregulation of neoliberalism is not connected to European construction; it occurred after the choice of the Single European Act for the creation of the Euro and is unrelated to it. Promoted in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, it corresponds to a moment that now seems outdated, but persists. The U.S.A., which supported Europe during the time of Monnet and Marshall, had changed by then : the European Union appeared to them as a competitor that needed to be controlled. President Macron, elected "Young Leader of the Year" in 2012, fulfills this role.
The Juncker Commission was a model of miscasting: Like Vidocq, who transformed from a criminal to an exemplary police officer, it appears that Jean-Claude Juncker, himself a former prime minister of a country with issues concerning fiscal transparency, chose to assemble a European Commission with roles opposite to the norm. Thus, we had a former minister who failed to reduce his country's debt serving as Commissioner for Economic Affairs, a founder of oil companies as Commissioner for Climate, a former minister from the most authoritarian government in the Union as Commissioner for Education and Culture, and an individual decorated with the Cross of the Order of Friendship of Russia as Vice-President for Foreign Affairs.
This is not the first time in current politics that a reversal between image and reality has been observed: countless left-leaning policies have been enacted by the right, and vice versa. It could be thought of as betraying one's electorate. With this Commission, however, it required betraying one's natural inclinations.
The Barroso Commission has been heavily criticized. It is normal that this commission prioritized competition, as it's the mode of authority for European institutions, just as for modern states, in the face of a civil society whose complexity drives development. An effort by a state to concentrate is counteracted by a society seeking complexity. But competition does not constitute a policy, and we have long since reached its limits.
There is a European culture, there is a European people. This has been evident since at least the 18th century, if not since the Middle Ages. Its unwritten motto is solidarity. Its foundation is the primacy of the human individual. The European genius lies in the diversity within unity, an essentially cultural blend rather than an economic one. Opposing this are the selfish forces of division. Solidarity does not exclude competition ; it simply demands clear rules.
Europe is primarily a civilization: what guided the world in the 18th and 19th centuries has deeper roots that warrant a political translation. The countries of the East have been marked by the experience of totalitarianism and have a mission to continue transmitting this history. Their divergence from Western trends is a strength, expressed by thinkers like Milosz or Kundera.
It is not a geographical entity, but a cultural one. It needs to rediscover its soul, one that is Roman and Christian, even if that means distancing itself from the United States. The evolution of the U.S. and its model should be subject to criticism.
Just as Switzerland is concentrated in the East, Europe speaks multiple languages, which is not contradictory to a collective sentiment. The use of English should be challenged, especially now that Great Britain has departed. If we're to use a global language, why not use French or Spanish ?
Before being a construction, it's more of a reconstruction. Devastated by two world wars, Europe was rebuilt with the help of the USA and the USSR, and we were able to make comparisons. We will only become great again if we acknowledge what we owe to the USA and understand that we can match them. The Ukrainian resistance should wake us up.
The European civilization should not be romanticized. Its history is explicit enough, both in good and bad aspects, and its desire for truth should prevail.
Since Charlemagne, Europe no longer exists as a nation and is fragmented : kingdoms like Portugal, France, and Spain, republics like Germany and Italy, more or less independent or under American influence. European unity persists and awakens, however, through intellectual and primarily literary activities (writers and academics, as well as artists, musicians, painters, philosophers, scientists, etc.), and the recognition of a distinctly European genius globally, acknowledged for its engineers and culture. Speaking of European nationalism would be anachronistic, but a certain nostalgia and pride in the grandeur of colonial empires can be felt. The Eastern countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria... learned with Russian domination that they could disappear, while England still hesitates between its former empire and its presence alongside the continent.
Nation-states have never ceased to compete. Propagandas that stigmatize neighboring countries don't only exist during wartime. There are powerful interests against the European Union.
During the enlargement to the East, the initial states failed to agree on strengthening coordination and, not wanting to delay it, proceeded with enlargement assuming the 2005 constitution would be ratified. The rest is history.
There's a need for a European narrative that must disengage from economics. Schuman took coal and steel as the basis for this sharing to initiate a more political process, which was halted by De Gaulle and couldn't be resumed. His vision of a confederation found its new end in the dominant Germany.
The Europe of the 21st century is condemned to modesty. It carries the responsibility of two world wars and can now only embody peace. Yet, Europe can take pride in its history and contributions, by distancing itself from American utilitarianism and marking its opposition to totalitarianism, from fascism to deconstructivism, totalitarianisms that it itself invented.
A persistent legend suggests that the pro-European party has always been in power, that the Europeanists, as they say, have always pushed towards stronger supranationality. But this is false : from De Gaulle's "empty chair" to the rejection of the constitution, proponents of the Union have always been under the influence of nationalists. Just look at the direction the Union has taken since the Maastricht agreements, which place the European Council, i.e., a confederal meeting, at the top of all decisions. Federal institutions such as the Commission, the Court of Justice, or the Central Bank are under pressure from nationalist opposition arenas, such as the Council or, to a lesser extent but according to the terms of its election, the Parliament. The claim of sovereignty that is sometimes opposed to Europe is directed against capitalism, which finds a screen there. To share sovereignty, which is the European project, you must first have it ...
The principle of primacy has not been consented to or ratified by the European peoples ; it does not have an indisputable democratic sanction. Presented to the vote only once in 2005, it was rejected. It rests on a serious political mistake, that of not having received the democratic sanctification it needed. The principle of primacy of European law is understood as a necessary condition for European integration : it guarantees effective and uniform application of European law throughout the Union. However, it is not an absolute, and questioning it should not be too easily dismissed as "nationalistic or jingoistic fantasy". Contrary to what some may think, respect for the rule of law is not synonymous with an overemphasis on minority rights but should help guarantee the very foundation of democracy, national sovereignty, and the principles enshrined in the treaties, notably the one at Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union which requires the Union to respect the national identity of states "inherent in their essential political and constitutional structures". The functioning of the Union is governed by the principle of subsidiarity, which means that each decision should be made at the appropriate level.
Europe is waiting for a new wave of unity, following that of the 20th century. It will be necessary to emphasize the separation between European politics, conducted by the European Council, i.e., the unanimity of heads of governments, and European construction, a unique example in human history of a supranational community being built in peace. If there is no will for a "historic" compromise, facts will force cooperation. It would still be necessary for the media to relay foreign initiatives : who in France knows the proposals of other countries ?
Following the model of the European Coal and Steel Community, which had worked well, could we not mutualize certain functions between a few states that naturally tend to exceed national boundaries, such as customs, internet security, fisheries organization, air traffic controllers, or railway companies ?
Taking a cue from Ariane, could we not launch a laboratory for the creation of free and public communication tools, replacing Android, Google, or Facebook ?
The Union needs its own resources. It has been suggested to institute a tax on financial transactions, known as the "Tobin tax." This tax, which should remain minimal for individuals, would help limit high-frequency trading, which is known for its drawbacks.
Because solidarity works better when it extends to a larger population, it would be wise to share our insurance and social security systems with other European countries that agree. There is a need at the European level.
The idea of everyone becoming the same, whether a dream or an absurd nightmare, has caused too much damage and fortunately is moving further away. Now, we need to pursue common projects together, even if they only involve a few countries, even if, for example, they are done without Germany or France ...
If leaders have often seemed disconnected, the threat of war may force them to adhere to discipline. If the USA has often been a competitor, these leaders should not forget that their alliance is indispensable, and the democratic reconstruction of 1945/1955 was achieved thanks to them.
(1) Here's the translation of the petition text advocating for truly European European elections (2019) :
"The European project is about sharing a space for discussion and solidarity. If this sharing is not perfect, it needs to be strengthened.
The European Parliament election is the only direct election of European institutions. It is the guardian of democracy. On one hand, some criticize Europe for its democratic weakness, and on the other hand, for its lack of decisiveness. To correct this, we need to empower the Assembly.
Parliamentary democracy relies on discussion and collective decision-making. It was criticized in the 20th century by various dictatorships, but it has proven its wisdom. There may be a better form of governance, but we haven't found it yet
Parliamentary elections are organized by each state according to its own preferences. As a result, they often become opportunities for domestic debates or even nationalist platforms.
This does not promote the work of the Parliament or its authority.
Therefore, we call on the media to organize European debates around this election, to showcase the European-level trends and results.
We ask the candidates to specify what kind of Europe they envision for the future and in which parliamentary group they will sit.
We urge states to coordinate as much as possible to jointly organize these elections and to present European issues.
These issues are not lacking: questions about migrants, ecology, security, solidarity, and even challenges from Trump or Putin."
(2) We must not allow the conspiracy theories of someone like Philippe de Villiers to persist, suggesting that this plan was written by the Americans (specifically Dean Acheson). It is easy to consult the archives at the Foundation for Europe in Lausanne.
It's unfortunate that a philosopher like Michel Onfray has been taken in by self-serving slander against European integration. Let's clarify some truths here :
Monnet was not an American agent but a trader with connections in the British and American markets. He later became a banker and was instrumental in coordinating the efforts of the Allied war.
Schuman was born in the German Empire and was conscripted as such in 1914. He had been declared unfit for service in 1908 and was assigned to administrative duties. He did indeed hope for the success of the Munich Agreements and voted for full powers for Pétain. He was appointed to Pétain's first government without requesting it but immediately refused to participate.
The Marshall Plan was an act of solidarity that came at a considerable cost to the Americans, establishing their dominant position, which no one could challenge.
(3) Contrary to what the media say, Sarkozy did not cancel the French referendum on the European Constitution (unfortunately). First, let's note that if Europe were a democracy, this constitution would be implemented since a large majority of Europeans had adopted it. Would we not enforce a law in France just because Corsicans reject it (although...) ? Secondly, there are significant differences between the Treaty of Lisbon and the proposed constitution: there are no longer European human rights, and there is no longer European political leadership. We have returned to rotating presidency and unanimous agreements within the European Council, on a case-by-case and country-by-country basis. These are significant differences hidden by nationalists, and those who rejected the constitution under the pretext of needing more Europe should remember this. It is easy to criticize the absence of Europe in the face of ecological, political, or security challenges, but this absence was intentional. Officially, all these "euro-skeptics" are pro-Europe, in favor of collaboration among European countries, coordination, and solidarity. However, in reality, they reject any decision that goes against their group, and they readily criticize an entity that cannot defend itself. On the other hand, among the "Europeanists," there are many opportunists who simply go with the flow, even if it means draining it, like Laurent Fabius or even Macron. Sovereignists brandish the rejection of this referendum as a rejection of Europe, but this interpretation is biased : it confuses the voices of a multitude that had no other expression ; it mixes the rejection of the existence of the Union, its policies, and its state. Lastly, it assumes discipline where there was only negation.
(4) "The Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals" was just a self-serving nonsense idea launched by De Gaulle against the Americans. The current Europe was built against Russia and owes its liberation to the USA, which General De Gaulle never wanted to admit. The myth of a "third way" was used to make people believe in France's greatness, but that greatness requires a humility that was unknown to him.