A Europe bridled

“A la carte” Europe: out of 27 Countries only 16 are euro group members, while 18 belong to the Schengen area, three have exceptions for the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and two for social policy, justice and security. It is the snapshot of contemporary Europe provided by father Pierre de Charentenay, editor-in-chief of Études, the magazine on contemporary culture of the Jesuits of France. In May’s issue, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, father de Charentenay retraced the parable that was occasioned by the “intuition of Robert Schuman”, which on “May 9 1950 launched the federalization process of European States”. “Europe today is bridled by its nations”, is the author’s conclusion. Europe without feelings. In his appreciation of European history, the Jesuit scholar underlined the “long list of exceptions and derogations granted to various Countries”, along with multifarious “reticences” and, more in general, “European peoples’ resistance to the federalization of the continent”, linked, in particular, to their sensitivity “of the interest implied in the act of partly delegating national sovereignty to a supernational body tasked with establishing common rules for the different Countries”. The Community system, de Charentenay explained, “is a real and true delegation of sovereignty”, but “populations object to such project”. Despite “the many common elements constituted by documents, treaties, and by the recent constitutional treaty”, “European symbols such as the flag and the hymn”, along with the common currency, “which brought populations closer, also in technical and cultural terms”, are still lacking “a true and emotional adhesion, capable of mobilizing the individual energies, to the extent of wanting to donate one’s life as it would be donated for one’s homeland”. According to Father de Charentenay, Europe is “a rational construction. But the human person isn’t only made of reason: there also are moods, memories and feelings” and the latter “need history more than they need reason”.Which governance? While “2004’s enlargement was the result of a need”, the passage from 15 to 25 and then to 27 member-States “was never void of consequences” nor of “changes of assets and powers”, and there remains a question mark regarding further enlargements and “borders” that will not stop at the Balkans, since, as the author says, “Turkey is already on the waiting list”. For the journalist the EU “is stained by the original sin of rejecting the debate regarding its borders”, while it continues expanding “without knowing where it’s going”. Another critical knot is the need to redefine “European governance” according to a system marked by “permanent negotiations among the various countries involved, taking the ‘acquis communautaire”, its “common basis”, as the point of departure. According to the expert, the Lisbon Treaty “actually complicated the EU’s organization chart”. Van Rompuy “chairs the European Council, while the president of the Commission remains at the head of the initiatives department and the rotating presidency grants to the Country representing the President-in-office “a crucial role in European culture”. “Indeed, de Charentenay notes – the situation is that of EU presidents who have to negotiate with one another”. As for foreign policy Fr. Charentenay asks: “Who represents Europe? The president of the European Council, the President of the Commission participating in the G20 or the High Representative for foreign policy of the Union and vice-president of the European Commission lady Ashton?”.Crisis and international scenarios. According to the Jesuit scholar, “a difficult trial phase, aimed at identifying who is in charge of what, is under way. But Europe appears to be bridled by its own institutions”, and “constantly subjected to the majority-triggered changes in Member States”. Thus the ever more precarious balance between the North and the South, between small and large States, can be renegotiated at any moment”. However the EU continues its progress facing the “effects of the financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath, like the crisis in Greece, that signals the deep-rooted national problems and the paralysis of the system”. While there is the “need for an economic government that will support all Euro-member States”, the “gravity” of the “political crisis and the disagreements between the States” becomes evident, as the latter appear “to be concerned only with their own interests, fearing to lose part of their benefits”. For de Charentenay things aren’t better on the international scene. The results of the joint measures taken to address the crisis are described as “disappointing”. After the “missed occasion” at the Copenhagen Conference, “the Union – he states – has no weight in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis”; it wasn’t present in Haiti” and it’s irrelevant “in relations with China”. In the large international institutions such as the Monetary Fund or the World Bank, he adds, “each Country wishes to preserve its seat, while a single negotiator would have a greater influence”. In brief, he concludes, “States want to remain at the centre of the stage, content with a fragmented and completely inefficient governance. Europe is definitely entangled in its nations”.