Clearing the Smoke, Part II: Federalists and Europhiles

In the first article of this series, I explained how the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding today’s political discourse is thoroughly annoying. For that reason, these contributions aims to clear some smoke and clarify some highly ambigious and misunderstood concepts such as ‘Europe’, ‘federalism, ‘nationalism’ or ‘integration’. The previous part dealt with the concept of confederalism and the way it is used in Belgian politics. Moreover, it denounced, in a personal crusade against a lack of transparency, the deliberate use of vagueness in discourses both at national and European levels. This part will continue with the concept of federalism in European integration.

The future of the EU has lately been subject to heavy debate, and this time the debate actually made it to the popular media. This is especially true in Britain, where some politicians appear to be seriously considering a ‘Brixit’, the future direction of the integration project is being vigorously discussed. In a way this is fortunate, in the sense that it was about time the people raise their voices and participate in the debate on the EU. Unfortunately, the debate was hijacked by two very outspoken yet unrealistic groups: federalist Europhiles and nationalist Eurosceptics. Oversimplifying, the first would seem to want to set up a European supergovernment that has exclusive competences over an increasing amount, while the latter would want to abolish the whole thing altogether and have national governments decide for themselves. To quote one anonymous yet fervent British Eurosceptic: “If we were to pull out of the EU then we would not have to bother about the Germans at all.”

As any reasonable mind can see, neither vision is feasible or desirable. Although I am a convinced European myself, even I don’t wish to suddenly see the EU become an ‘ordinary’ federal state the likes of Germany or the US. Not only are its institutions currently incapable for taking on this task, but at the moment there is also no widespread democratic support for such a turn of events. However, the idea that it is only the EU that makes Britain – or any other European country – tied to the German economy or the Greek crisis is possible even more preposterous. All of Europe’s countries today are in such a state of economic, social and political interdependence that there is no escaping the collateral effects of anyone’s policies or misfortunes. Yet the biggest problem with this debate is that it only supports one view of federalism. Both radical Europhiles and Eurosceptics see federalism as the material construction of a European superstate, and integration as the process of empowering that state at the cost of national governments. The only difference is their idea if this being either good or bad.

But federalism and integration mean so much more than this narrow interpretation, used by federalists to depict their ideal of a perfectly united Europe and by sceptics to play on the people’s fears of the distant and unknown. In its most basic political interpretation, federalism is a form of government whereby power is constitutionally divided between several layers of governing authorities, ranging from a central to local authorities. Unlike confederalism, whereby each group member remains formally independent, in a federalist structure the members are bound by a formal constitution and are no longer seen as independent states, but rather as parts of a larger state with a certain amount of autonomy. As quickly becomes clear, the EU is somewhat in between. True, each member state is independent and has a clear say, but simultaneously they are bound by the acquis communautaire and power is diffused over several layers. Hence, when federalism is used in a European sense it is not to be understood as the establishment of the European superstate, but rather in a variety of meanings, ranging from a model for the territorial distribution of power or a socio-economic doctrine defining the scope of state intervention, to an ethical project underpinned by a set of values. In general, European federalism is rarely used as anything more than a political vision or academic exercise on how the EU can be organized in a more efficient way. Besides, apart from the groups mentioned above there is no one in the EU who seriously thinks about setting up a full-blown federal structure for the EU.

Integration is another such a concept that is surrounded by many misconceptions. When used in the federalism debate, integration is usually seen as the expansion of the EU institutional structure and policy competences. A very narrow interpretation really, as it can easily be understood as the growing number of cooperative projects in Europe, the convergence or harmonisation of member state policies and practices, or even the assimilation of non-European cultures in European society. Eurosceptics and Europhiles alike use a vague amalgamation of all these definitions to describe what they think the EU project is all about. It is hard to blame them, for integration truly is a difficult term. But nonetheless, when embroiled in political debate that can decide a country’s membership to the most successful peace and prosperity project ever in history, one must make clear what one is talking about. Make your choice, but make it wisely, for before you know it you’ll have to deal with populists, nationalist and separatists that will make you regret your every ill-chosen word. But who are these troublemakers anyway? That’s for the third and last part of this contribution: populism, nationalism and independence. Stay tuned!