The common project

Distinguish, involve, define: in these three verbs may be epitomized the “recipe” of PAUL THIBAUD , philosopher and writer, to extricate Europe from the situation of impasse in which it currently languishes and give it new impetus. Writing in the last number of the French review of international policy, following the entry of Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union, Thibaud says that, faced by the “cultural and spiritual failure” of the continent, without “a radical change of method” it will not be possible “to write a new collective page of the history of Europe”. NO TO FALSE PRAGMATISM. According to Thibaud, we need in the first place to abandon the logic of the “efficiency of the apparatus to the detriment of the project”. This is a “utilitarian” view that is based on function, and not on aspiration, and that derives from the “premise that the market is a wonderful means of unification, the basis and matrix of everything else”: a postulate according to which “political Europe ought not to be aspired to or organized as an end in itself, since it will inevitably come once the market has produced its own effects on the populations”. In other words, argues Thibaut, “the single market and political and social Europe are considered two segments of the same trajectory”. That’s why so far “uniformity, rather than union, has so far been privileged”; an attempt to produce homogenization that, as Thibaud stresses, “has considerably restricted the margin for action of the member states” and has resulted in Europe progressing “according to the problems of the day and the pressures of lobbies, without a well-defined project, and in the name of “a false pragmatism”. So “a critical re-examination” is needed to indicate, or “re-establish”, a new route. GREATER INVOLVEMENT. “The unity of Europe”, argues the philosopher, “requires the will to distinguish what is common to everyone and what is peculiar to each people; to involve the political subjects, i.e. the nation states, in the common enterprise” and, lastly, “to define a European project”. “Distinguishing – explains Thibaud – means excluding a limitless affirmation of the superiority of European law, even over national constitutions”, and verifying “the compatibility of EU legislation with the fundamental principles that these constitutions ought to enforce and ensure compliance with”. But “the pressure of the market on the various nations must also be curbed”. “The key to everything” remains “the involvement of the national political communities, through their parliaments, in European policy”. “Elected assemblies – declares Thibaud – cannot be reduced to the humiliating role of transposing what has already been decided elsewhere; they must have a role of determining, and not merely of reacting to, a decision”. “To infuse European democracy with fresh life, we should therefore aim not at a global, but at a diversified unity, distinguishing in the institutions the various spheres of action and the various levels of integration”. A NEW HISTORICAL VIEW . According to Thibaud, “defining a common attitude and project of the European peoples is an obligation in response to a world system that is confronting them with an urgent challenge. These peoples have no other choice but to assume a common position on the great issues at stake in the modern world, such as the hostility of the Muslim jihadists to the West, the disarray and underdevelopment of Africa, the commercial threat of the Far East, or the new American nationalism”. “Europe – insists the philosopher – must endow itself with a historical view relevant for our times, hence with a doctrine of globalization into which to enter with its own principles”. These include “the principle of precaution”, or that of “fair competition” that “limits the risk of considering the world as a single bloc without taking into account the great diversity of the situations”. But Thibaud also emphasises “the moral obligation to offer to all peoples the opportunities of scientific and technological modernity”. All this needs to be placed in the perspective of “a Europe of nations, a truly European Europe”. This objective, according to the philosopher, is not achievable through the proposal, advanced by some, “of the federalism of some countries (those of the eurozone)” so as to “set an example of coherence and release the energy necessary for a great project”. The so-called project of the European “inner hard core” of nations, concludes Thibaud, “would have the dual defect of not defining the relation of this hard core with the rest of the Union, and of characterising it solely in quantitative terms, and not on the basis of the kind of Europe we need to reinforce”.