I think this interview shows again one of the main problems of the EU:
The missing vision about how should this project should look like in the next decades.
Discussions about the future of the EU seem to only take place within Bruessels disconnected from national politics.
Asking friends living in smaller member states the impression seems to be that the purpose of the project is just integrating into German economy and everything else is just a show to hide this intention.
The economic integration is going well , I don't see that as a negative point. But taking this away what would be left ?
The Ukraine war is now showing that western security politics is situated at NATO and the "EU engine" France and Germany is not willing or able to provide leadership.
Regarding common culture and a feeling of living in a common sphere:
All arguments regarding this also apply to GB and the US maybe even to the whole anglosphere.
As a German the USA seems much closer than Portugal and honestly Australia is closer than Romania.
To set up the EU as a cultural project the question has to be answered:
What distinguishs the EU from the "Western World" ?
How are we special, what do we have in common what we don't have with other western countries?
I think the answer to those questions would also provide a vision how to proceed into the future.
Lots of very interesting thoughts to mull over. Thank you, Philipp. I think you're getting at the core point of vision (or, in general in the Western political system, lack thereof)
I was in Brussels in 2019 and took a tour of the European Parliament. I have not been outside the U.S. since then due to the pandemic, and so I take the EU issues particularly closely. I understand the challenges of democratic governing of a large number of diverse countries and realize that there are no perfect solutions. Nevertheless, two ideas come to my mind:
1. When deciding on the voting rules such as unanimity, 2/3 majority, and simple majority -- another option is rank voting. Rank voting makes people believe that their votes are not wasted and they are more likely to vote.
2. Europe would benefit of a unified energy policy. For example, if German's economy gets a disproportional hit from shutting off gas supply from Russia, other EU countries would share their gas with Germany.
Is idea-2 impossible? It's definitely very difficult. On related topic, German's resistance to nuclear energy is irrational, because a nuclear disaster at a French or Czech power plant would affect Germany similarly to Chernobyl's fumes covering Western Europe.
Please continue working with decision makers and raising critical issues,
And yet again no mention of the possibility to reduce the areas where politics intervenes. It would most likely bring better outcomes and will probably be even more widely accepted.
One of the biggest sources of angst about the EU is how much the EU administrative state and European Court of Justice de facto creates legislation without politics (and therefore without democratic input). So, it seems to me that the problem is quite the opposite.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the original EU institutions, and arguably the most powerful. Like the US Supreme Court, it latterly claimed powers for itself not originally enshrined in its creation via two very important court cases: Van Gend en Loos and Costa. In the former the court decided that treaty law had “direct internal effect,” meaning that people of EU countries can argue treaty law in their own courts. In the latter the court decided that treaty law was “supreme” over national laws.
That's latter one's a pretty big deal, since it went quite a bit further in elevating EU Treaty Law higher than the original signatories seemed to intend. But here's where the effects became far more insidious and impactful: since then, the CJEU has been able to *make* treaty law with its various judgements, and therefore de jure legislate for the constituent states of the EU, without any democratic process or, really, right of appeal!
Americans have well-learned how contentious legislating at the bench like this can be. When it goes your way, it can seem a very progressive method of furthering your ends over a recalcitrant and backward (or radical and subversive) legislature. But, when it doesn't go your way, it can (rightly) seem like an outrage against the very democratic process and the unique legitimacy of a democratically-elected legislature.
In the EU context, this dynamic of the judicial CJEU "branch" usurping the legislative power of the legislature is especially problematic, given that the only democratically-elected body of the EU, the EU Parliament, isn't really a parliament at all. MPPs cannot actually propose laws! The (un-elected) Commission does that. The Parliament can proposed amendments, but it's up to the Commission to accept or deny them. In this way, the EU Parliament is a lot more like the original Parliaments called up by the Crown to advise the views of the aristocratic elite.
So, who is this Commission, who has such power to legislate? It is 28 Commissioners and it represents the EU itself, not its Member States, much less its people. It is the guardian of the treaties and enforces EU law. The law which can be created by the CJEU's judgements. The law and jurists stand above all democratic process.
Many important things (like the debate over whether to boycott Russian oil or to release another EU-wide financial vehicle to support the transition away from Russian energy) are taken at the The European Council level. This is a gathering of the PMs of the Member States. To that degree it is democratic. But without any legislative check or even really oversight on the executive. Again, another retro throwback to the various European Congresses where heads of state balanced power between themselves, beyond the oversight or say of the people whom will be affected. The Imperial Presidency. Again, a little too much like the excesses of the contemporary American system of government, where the Executive Branch through various "emergencies" has seized far more power for itself than it was vested by the Constitution.
That is not the opposite but just an even worse version of the same problem. Not only does the state encroach more and more aspects of peoples lives but it less and less cares about checks and balances.
Her comment here is a really core part of the problem: "I would need to think more about the steps that could reinforce our European identity. You know, we don't even learn in school about the European Union. There's a half page on it in school books. I came to Brussels and everybody is talking about Alcide de Gasperi and Simone Veil and I'm asking myself: Why are we not taught about them in schools?"
I have not heard of either of these men (and would appreciate a good book recommendation in English) and have a hard time distinguishing the European Commission from the Council from the Parliament, but I'm not European.
My wife, who is Swedish (and therefore an EU citizen), wouldn't have any better understanding than I do, though, despite Sweden entering the EU when she was in primary school. Nor is understanding about other European states' national cultures much better in generally quite cosmopolitan Sweden: Swedes know a lot about politics and culture in the UK and US (neither of which is in the EU) but would have a very hard time telling you anything useful about French, Spanish, or Italian politics. Much hand-wringing is happening right now in Sweden about how little they even know about their neighbor, Finland, which is set to join NATO with them this year (and was part of Sweden for 500 years!). This is not fertile ground for a common European nation. And building this vast administrative state, judiciary, and bewildering series of treaty relations on top of a continent where there just isn't a common European culture is very problematic. The process is also rather un-democratic, a lacking in legitimacy.
It's much the same challenge as faced the American Colonies in the immediate decades after independence. At least there, they spoke the same mother tongue (mostly) and had a common colonial parent (though neither was true of all future US States). But how did a common American nation get formed? How did a minority of radical Patriots bring the rest of the population along to the independence project? And then toward the idea that the original Articles of Confederation (much more like today's EU) was insufficiently unified and centralized and we needed a new, more cohesive federal structure via the 1789 Constitution? Maybe politics was strictly an elite affair back then and they didn't have to care what regular people thought? Perhaps the threat of war (from Napoleon's France) and then an actual war (the War of 1812) helped? But very deep schisms remained for two generations thereafter: Did it require a devastating Civil War to hash out differences? We keep being reminded that the wounds from that never really healed, though. Maybe a whole series of external threats and near-constant warfare helped to solidify an American nation?
Let's hope this isn't what it does and would take to help Europe to unify at the cultural and social level as much as the EU has tried to push it at the administrative and legal level.
I agree with you. The biggest barrier to the European Union's development is that it hasn't done any nation-building. It needs to.
Your parallel with the US is interesting. I've always thought that the right way to think about it is not just the US North vs. South. There's also Canada. Its could have joined the declaration of independence, but didn't, mainly because it had yet another ethos: more culturally French and religiously Catholic, at a time when it mattered. But since they did split, we forget that in those crucial years, the 13 colonies got together because they were culturally closer than they were to Canada.
PS: Simone was French, not Italian, and in France that's a female name
PS2: I'd bet that 80-98% of Europeans struggle with the differences between the Council, Commission, and Parliament.
I think this interview shows again one of the main problems of the EU:
The missing vision about how should this project should look like in the next decades.
Discussions about the future of the EU seem to only take place within Bruessels disconnected from national politics.
Asking friends living in smaller member states the impression seems to be that the purpose of the project is just integrating into German economy and everything else is just a show to hide this intention.
The economic integration is going well , I don't see that as a negative point. But taking this away what would be left ?
The Ukraine war is now showing that western security politics is situated at NATO and the "EU engine" France and Germany is not willing or able to provide leadership.
Regarding common culture and a feeling of living in a common sphere:
All arguments regarding this also apply to GB and the US maybe even to the whole anglosphere.
As a German the USA seems much closer than Portugal and honestly Australia is closer than Romania.
To set up the EU as a cultural project the question has to be answered:
What distinguishs the EU from the "Western World" ?
How are we special, what do we have in common what we don't have with other western countries?
I think the answer to those questions would also provide a vision how to proceed into the future.
Lots of very interesting thoughts to mull over. Thank you, Philipp. I think you're getting at the core point of vision (or, in general in the Western political system, lack thereof)
Thank you, Tomas.
I was in Brussels in 2019 and took a tour of the European Parliament. I have not been outside the U.S. since then due to the pandemic, and so I take the EU issues particularly closely. I understand the challenges of democratic governing of a large number of diverse countries and realize that there are no perfect solutions. Nevertheless, two ideas come to my mind:
1. When deciding on the voting rules such as unanimity, 2/3 majority, and simple majority -- another option is rank voting. Rank voting makes people believe that their votes are not wasted and they are more likely to vote.
2. Europe would benefit of a unified energy policy. For example, if German's economy gets a disproportional hit from shutting off gas supply from Russia, other EU countries would share their gas with Germany.
Is idea-2 impossible? It's definitely very difficult. On related topic, German's resistance to nuclear energy is irrational, because a nuclear disaster at a French or Czech power plant would affect Germany similarly to Chernobyl's fumes covering Western Europe.
Please continue working with decision makers and raising critical issues,
Victoria
You're right. There's so many better voting mechanisms! One I discovered recently is the Parliamentary Model, based on some randomness, by Nick Bostrom, Robin Hanson, and Toby Ord. https://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/moral-uncertainty-towards-a-solution.html
And agreed on the unified electric policy. Electric grid and gasoduct connections between Spain and France are an example.
And yet again no mention of the possibility to reduce the areas where politics intervenes. It would most likely bring better outcomes and will probably be even more widely accepted.
I will address this very topic very soon!
One of the biggest sources of angst about the EU is how much the EU administrative state and European Court of Justice de facto creates legislation without politics (and therefore without democratic input). So, it seems to me that the problem is quite the opposite.
What are some good examples of that?
And are these anecdotes or is that a pattern?
I know it's a common trope from Brexiteers, but I haven't really observed that yet.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the original EU institutions, and arguably the most powerful. Like the US Supreme Court, it latterly claimed powers for itself not originally enshrined in its creation via two very important court cases: Van Gend en Loos and Costa. In the former the court decided that treaty law had “direct internal effect,” meaning that people of EU countries can argue treaty law in their own courts. In the latter the court decided that treaty law was “supreme” over national laws.
That's latter one's a pretty big deal, since it went quite a bit further in elevating EU Treaty Law higher than the original signatories seemed to intend. But here's where the effects became far more insidious and impactful: since then, the CJEU has been able to *make* treaty law with its various judgements, and therefore de jure legislate for the constituent states of the EU, without any democratic process or, really, right of appeal!
Americans have well-learned how contentious legislating at the bench like this can be. When it goes your way, it can seem a very progressive method of furthering your ends over a recalcitrant and backward (or radical and subversive) legislature. But, when it doesn't go your way, it can (rightly) seem like an outrage against the very democratic process and the unique legitimacy of a democratically-elected legislature.
In the EU context, this dynamic of the judicial CJEU "branch" usurping the legislative power of the legislature is especially problematic, given that the only democratically-elected body of the EU, the EU Parliament, isn't really a parliament at all. MPPs cannot actually propose laws! The (un-elected) Commission does that. The Parliament can proposed amendments, but it's up to the Commission to accept or deny them. In this way, the EU Parliament is a lot more like the original Parliaments called up by the Crown to advise the views of the aristocratic elite.
So, who is this Commission, who has such power to legislate? It is 28 Commissioners and it represents the EU itself, not its Member States, much less its people. It is the guardian of the treaties and enforces EU law. The law which can be created by the CJEU's judgements. The law and jurists stand above all democratic process.
Many important things (like the debate over whether to boycott Russian oil or to release another EU-wide financial vehicle to support the transition away from Russian energy) are taken at the The European Council level. This is a gathering of the PMs of the Member States. To that degree it is democratic. But without any legislative check or even really oversight on the executive. Again, another retro throwback to the various European Congresses where heads of state balanced power between themselves, beyond the oversight or say of the people whom will be affected. The Imperial Presidency. Again, a little too much like the excesses of the contemporary American system of government, where the Executive Branch through various "emergencies" has seized far more power for itself than it was vested by the Constitution.
I didn't know about the CJEU's usurpation of power. Thank you. Ugh, even worse than I thought
That is not the opposite but just an even worse version of the same problem. Not only does the state encroach more and more aspects of peoples lives but it less and less cares about checks and balances.
Her comment here is a really core part of the problem: "I would need to think more about the steps that could reinforce our European identity. You know, we don't even learn in school about the European Union. There's a half page on it in school books. I came to Brussels and everybody is talking about Alcide de Gasperi and Simone Veil and I'm asking myself: Why are we not taught about them in schools?"
I have not heard of either of these men (and would appreciate a good book recommendation in English) and have a hard time distinguishing the European Commission from the Council from the Parliament, but I'm not European.
My wife, who is Swedish (and therefore an EU citizen), wouldn't have any better understanding than I do, though, despite Sweden entering the EU when she was in primary school. Nor is understanding about other European states' national cultures much better in generally quite cosmopolitan Sweden: Swedes know a lot about politics and culture in the UK and US (neither of which is in the EU) but would have a very hard time telling you anything useful about French, Spanish, or Italian politics. Much hand-wringing is happening right now in Sweden about how little they even know about their neighbor, Finland, which is set to join NATO with them this year (and was part of Sweden for 500 years!). This is not fertile ground for a common European nation. And building this vast administrative state, judiciary, and bewildering series of treaty relations on top of a continent where there just isn't a common European culture is very problematic. The process is also rather un-democratic, a lacking in legitimacy.
It's much the same challenge as faced the American Colonies in the immediate decades after independence. At least there, they spoke the same mother tongue (mostly) and had a common colonial parent (though neither was true of all future US States). But how did a common American nation get formed? How did a minority of radical Patriots bring the rest of the population along to the independence project? And then toward the idea that the original Articles of Confederation (much more like today's EU) was insufficiently unified and centralized and we needed a new, more cohesive federal structure via the 1789 Constitution? Maybe politics was strictly an elite affair back then and they didn't have to care what regular people thought? Perhaps the threat of war (from Napoleon's France) and then an actual war (the War of 1812) helped? But very deep schisms remained for two generations thereafter: Did it require a devastating Civil War to hash out differences? We keep being reminded that the wounds from that never really healed, though. Maybe a whole series of external threats and near-constant warfare helped to solidify an American nation?
Let's hope this isn't what it does and would take to help Europe to unify at the cultural and social level as much as the EU has tried to push it at the administrative and legal level.
I agree with you. The biggest barrier to the European Union's development is that it hasn't done any nation-building. It needs to.
Your parallel with the US is interesting. I've always thought that the right way to think about it is not just the US North vs. South. There's also Canada. Its could have joined the declaration of independence, but didn't, mainly because it had yet another ethos: more culturally French and religiously Catholic, at a time when it mattered. But since they did split, we forget that in those crucial years, the 13 colonies got together because they were culturally closer than they were to Canada.
PS: Simone was French, not Italian, and in France that's a female name
PS2: I'd bet that 80-98% of Europeans struggle with the differences between the Council, Commission, and Parliament.
Where can we find the podcast, Thomas?
I’ll add it to the next premium article! I should have been clearer.