A difficult task

The European integration of the continent's states and peoples is a grandiose political project, launched 75 years ago, and characterised in the following decades by important achievements, in the spirit of the gradual nature of a supranational construction.

For these achievements, politics has relied on the law and the institutions that are founded on it. The old European Communities – now the European Union – are the result of political choices entrusted to a sequence of treaties (first establishing the Communities, and then gradually modifying and integrating them). The treaties have established objectives, principles and rules to implement the gradual integration of the European states.
The great political project is based on a system of shared values ​​and, above all, on the declared desire to place them at the foundation of a common future, which would truly allow Europe to leave behind the tragedies of the first half of the twentieth century.

Last June, the peoples of the Member States were called to the polls to elect the members of the new European Parliament. The rules established in the Treaties are inspired by the desire to give life to a parliamentary dialectic based on "European" parties, formations that reflect the inspirations and orientations of the members projected into a European dimension. In the hemicycle chamber of the European Parliament (EP), that is, the parliamentarians are not placed according to national groups (the French all together on one side, and then the Germans, the Cypriots, the Lithuanians, the Italians, the Poles and so on for 27 groups). They are inserted into European political formations, such as the Party of European Socialists, the European People's Party, the Liberals, the Conservatives and so on. The parliamentarians elected by the people of each Member State are placed in these European formations.

The electoral campaign and the outcome of the recent elections offer some food for thought on the dualistic nature of “doing politics” in a European parliamentary body. Each parliamentarian is an expression of the reality of the Member State to which he or she belongs and, at the same time, becomes the architect of actions and policies of a European nature.

In the world of information, attempts have been made to simplify the picture of the formations that have presented themselves to voters in the various Member States, presenting them as being in favour of European integration or “sovereignists”, that is, aimed at the strenuous defence of national sovereignty.

In general, the outcome of the vote – which saw a low turnout – does not seem to have rewarded the “sovereignist” parties. In other words, three “pro-European” formations (socialists, populars and liberals) were confirmed in the top positions. However, it cannot be ignored that some far-right formations from various countries (France, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, Holland…) obtained significant numbers of seats, and the new EP includes political groups that are openly hostile to the progress of integration. The newly born group of “Patriots”, then, is an indecent example of intolerance, racism, xenophobia. On the far left is La France insoumise of the unpresentable Melanchon.

The new composition of Parliament allows us to note the inevitable contradiction between the desire to implement political programs that claim the primacy of national sovereignty and the need to create European, multinational formations. In these formations, that is, parliamentarians from each of the national parties sit next to colleagues who are bearers of more differences than affinities with regard to the expression of interests. Just think of the issue of immigration. For example, Le Pen, Orban, Salvini are sovereignists who bear interests that do not converge on aspects such as borders, reception, solidarity (so as not to disturb fraternity).
Then there are some major issues that require shared visions and objectives, to effectively address the challenges of our day. In the coming years, the European Union will have to address issues of great scope: the need for a common foreign and defense policy; the challenges of the environment and climate; the urgencies in the field of immigration; economic, commercial, financial and fiscal choices.
These challenges are presented to a large entity – the EU – whose ability to take effective action is still limited by rules and procedures that grant excessive power to individual states. Important matters (such as foreign and defense policy) are still conditioned by the rule that requires unanimous decisions. The ramshackle forays of the past few weeks by Hungary’s Orban (who declares himself the leader of an “illiberal democracy,” an obvious oxymoron) show how difficult it is for the Union to take important initiatives in a dramatic period that sees a war dragging on (for who knows how long!) in Europe.

Seventy years ago, in August 1954, the French National Assembly (with the convergent vote of communists and Gaullists) sank the treaty establishing the European Defense Community (EDC), the cornerstone of a desired political union, strongly desired by President Alcide De Gasperi.
In her beautiful book De Gasperi uomo solo, his daughter Maria Romana writes: «I saw tears flowing shamelessly down my father’s now old face, as he shouted into the phone to the Prime Minister: “Better to die than not to do the CED (…) This is not a parliamentary game issue on which we can reach compromises, it is a cornerstone. If the European Union is not created today, it will inevitably have to be created in a few decades; but what will happen between today and that day, God only knows»».
14 decades have passed, and integration is not progressing. Will it be able to do so with a European Parliament held hostage by sovereignists and populists of various extractions?


Edoardo Greppi
NP August / September 2024