Alphen, Netherlands. 10
July. Last week’s Franco-German coup effectively ended hopes of a real European
political union, and set Europe back on the road to a European alliance of
states, with a touch of empire thrown in. Having followed much of the
commentary over the past week I am surprised how few have realised the enormity
of what has just happened.
A mediocre German defence
minister is suddenly parachuted into the post of European Commission President.
A member of the French Establishment, and current Head of the International
Monetary Fund, is summarily made Head of the European Central Bank. A placeman,
lame duck Belgian Prime Minister, the second Belgian out of three, is appointed
President of the European Council, whilst a septuagenarian placeman Spanish
foreign minister is confirmed as the next High Representative of the EU’s
Common Foreign and Security Policy. Last week’s imposition by Germany and
France of Ursula von der Leyen, Christine Lagarde, Charles Michel and Josep
Borrell certainly came as a surprise to most Members of the European
Parliament. As an exercise in
closed-door Euro-elitism/power-play it is straight from the annals of Richelieu
and Bismarck. It was not meant to be like this. What happened and what are the
implications for the future of the EU?
What happened? French and
German power ‘happened’. There are few things that unite the very disparate
ranks of the European Parliament and current Commission President Jean Claude
Juncker, but last week’s Franco-German coup did. The European Parliament had believed that a
precedent had been set with the appointment of Juncker. He had been the ‘spitzenkandidat’, chosen,
and thus legitimised, by the largest political grouping in the European
Parliament, the EPP. European
federalists had hoped that such a process would deepen political integration by
enabling the European Parliament to ensure appointments to the Commission, and
the other great offices of the European would-be ‘state, would be in its gift.
Some have suggested the appointments came about because the EU 27 could not
agree on other candidates. This is not the case. Berlin and Paris simply moved to
decisively re-exert their control by exploiting the divisions between the
member-states.
What are the
implications? Last week was certainly a big step back from European Union. Whilst
there have been ‘big’ country Commission presidents in the past, Roy Jenkins
and Jacques Delors come to mind, the political balance within the EU has tended
to be best served by having those from the smaller states as the respective
heads of the European Council and European Commission. It was assumed that such a ‘balance’ would be
maintained, which is why the Dutch Socialist and Commission Vice-President,
Frans Timmermans and the Swedish Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, were touted
so strongly for the Commission job. Now,
that political balance has been effectively demolished by Berlin and Paris, with
a German taking control of ‘power’ within the EU, whilst a Frenchwoman has been
put in charge of the money.
Here was Europe’s two
power-states, Germany and France (in that order), effectively taking back
control - spitzenklanden? It is not difficult
to see why. Efforts to ‘democratise’ power in the EU have left it rudderless
and leaderless, adrift in a sea of dangerous change. Critically, little has really been done of
note to solve the underlying structural weaknesses of the Euro, or to prepare
for a more secure Europe. Berlin and Paris clearly agree it is time for some
leadership to be injected into political and economic union, albeit by stepping
back from political and economic union.
Do Germany and France
share a vision for the future European Union? No. President Macron appears to
want to move faster towards banking and fiscal union than Germany, and wants
Germans to pay for the debt mutualisation such integration would entail. Conversely,
Germany wants to move towards some form of European Defence Union, with ‘VDL’
an enthusiastic champion, whilst France wants to keep defence a strictly
intergovernmental business, not least to maintain links with the British.
Could Britain have
stopped the coup if it had not been consumed by the disaster that is Not Brexit? Probably not. With a few notable exceptions
Germany and France have traditionally sought reasons to block the appointment
of a Briton to the EU’s two senior positions – the twin presidencies of the
Council and the Commission. The reason
offered has usually been that Britain is not ‘European’ enough. It is certainly
not ‘European’ enough now.
There is a profound Brexit
irony in these Franco-German shenanigans.
The Franco-German coup shifts the EU back to being precisely the kind of
super-alliance between states London long championed, and decisively away from
the European super-state that London so feared.
In a sense, the coup simply re-confirms the essential paradox at the
heart of the European project: more ‘Europe’ means less European state, but
few, if any, European states want less of themselves. It is also clear that
neither Germany nor France are really willing to countenance any decisive loss
of national sovereignty in the name of ‘Europe’, preferring instead to control
‘Europe’ in pursuit of their respective, vital national interests.
In other words, when power-push
comes to power-shove the Franco-German idea of ‘Europe’, is not that far from
the traditional British idea of ‘Europe’. For Germany, ‘Europe’ remains a
legitimate institution in which to embed German power, so long as Germany
effectively controls it. France, ‘Europe’ still simply a mechanism for a bigger
France. Plus ca change…
European Union, Alliance
or Empire?
Julian
Lindley-French
