Publié par Lauren Clark
Jan Rovny – Professeur assistant, Centre d’études européennes de Sciences Po (CEE), Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d’évaluation des politiques publiques (LIEPP) ; “Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data”. Sciences Po Paris cours : Party Competition and Ideology in Europe (college universitaire, 2014-2015)
Sur le sujet d’Emmanuel Macron et l’Union Europe
What would be the ideal relationship between France and the European Union in your opinion ?
France is the center of Europe. Without France there would have been no Europe. Europe is here because France reconciled with Germany. It is sort of the fundamental core of it, and the idea that this reconciliation is going to be functional, it’s going to be based on economic rapprochement, and the tying of the key industries at the time, which were coal and steel, because without coal and steel you have no modern industrial economy; and without coal and steel you have no war. And so they [France and Germany] have not just tied their key production; they have tied their key war productions. Not only would they prosper together, but they would not be able to attack each other because their production of the key war materials was tied. So this question is about what kind of a Europe would one want to have, and it’s a very complex question, it’s a very normative question, and people will give you different answers. But there is no question that France is almost synonymous with Europe. Of course you could have some sort of a regional union; you could imagine Germany doing something with Denmark and Austria and the Netherlands and maybe Sweden and Finland but that would be a very different project. So, France is the core. There is no Europe, or anything like it, without France.
It was said that if Marine Le Pen was elected, it would be the end of Europe.
Which is probably not true, because if she got elected she probably would have not gotten the legislative majority. She wouldn’t have been able to legislate a referendum on “Frexit”. She wouldn’t have been able to legislate a new mandate for some kind of a new treaty or special relationship. So, it probably would not have been true legally speaking, but it probably would have been true symbolically speaking. Of course, if you get a staunch anti-Europe at the helm of France, which is one of the two core members [of the EU], then it would have symbolically been very bad. How much she could actually legislate is a separate question.
In what measure does this French presidential election mark an important step toward the Europeanisation of the national political debate ?
I frankly don’t think that his [Macron’s] priority should be Europe, for his own sake and for the country’s sake. [France] will obviously always be connected to Europe. You can’t do modern european politics without Europe because Europe is fundamentally embedded in all national politics. He’s a very intelligent man and I think he probably has a high awareness of what the European Union is and what it does, so he will probably always be aware of how the national debate connects to the European debate. He needs to do some of the fundamental economic reforms that he wants to do, and that are obviously related to Europe. If he wants to contain deficits, that is related to Europe. If he wants to increase productivity of the French economy and therefore growth, that is related to Europe. The last thing that he should do, in my opinion, is seek a new treaty. A European treaty is a political suicide because they’re very, very difficult. You know how the American constitution is changed ? It’s two thirds of the two legislative chambers and three fifths of the state. Well, that is easier than a European treaty which needs all of the states; unanimity. Especially in the current climate, which is a tense one where there are a lot of different interests pushing in different directions within Europe, where we have some elections coming up that are unforeseeable. What’s going to happen in Italy ? We might have Beppe Grillo being the prime minister of Italy, which would show how incompetent populists are when they get into power. But it also would be another type of a populist politician at the helm of a major EU state. How would such a politician deal with a treaty change ? You don’t want to tie your political chances and you don’t want to burn your political capital on something that is inherently difficult even in good times. My suggestion for Macron would be to take it easy with Europe. What I think he might want to do is some more symbolic steps towards increasing cooperation, more solidarity measures- measures in terms of coordinating budgetary affairs; they might consider two tier Europe in terms of coming up with a kind of proposal to create a European parliament for the euro-zone. These are the types of things that they could discuss and push for, but I would suggest to do only the things that can be done without formal treaty change.
Do you believe that the EU has accomplished the mission that was given it by the founders ?
I think that the European Union is one of the most successful international organizations ever. It has accomplished many things, but it’s not finished. That mission is continuing. I think the European Union has many problems but it’s the best thing we have. It should be reformed; it should be improved. It is a political process. I think the European Union should be more internally overtly political because it makes fundamental decisions about markets, about trade, about redistribution on some level, and that is inherently political. When there is a center-right majority in the European parliament, the commission should be more center-right, and vice-versa. If you take many of the countries that have entered the European Union, either when it was created as the European coal and steel community in the early 50’s, you had Germany and Italy that had been authoritarian regimes committing unspeakable crimes only a few years before that. And then there was a wave of many of the other countries that were entering that were authoritarian states before : Spain, Portugal, Greece and all of Eastern Europe. A vast majority of the states that have been brought into the family have been brought into a fold of relatively prosperous democratic countries. The EU has been a fundamental mechanism of prosperity and stability and democracy, and it sounds like a slogan for the European commission, but it’s true.
Being a European, do you feel connected to other Europeans and other European Union member states ?
Absolutely. But, I am particular. I think the nation states should be abolished. I am not a federalist; I don’t want a federal Europe; I want a unitary Europe. I don’t know if I feel more European than National. I have many layers of identity, and it doesn’t stop at a national border at all.
Do you believe that the governments are continuing to agree on certain large projects and that they are functioning well ?
There are lots of problems, but yes. There’s Brexit; that’s a big issue. And there are obviously components where the governments don’t agree. There are many other things like the migration crises and the migration quotas where there is a large divide between the different governments. But on the whole, the governments agree on a slew of other things that are to key the European project. And what is core to the European project are the four freedoms : the freedom of movement of goods, services, labor and capital. That’s the fundament. We may like it or not, we make think that more should be included in that fundament, but that’s the fundament and the government’s generally agree on it… At least the current government’s. Now if Marine Le Pen were elected, she would disagree with a number of these components.
In your opinion, what are the largest European challenges Emmanuel Macron must deal with during his term ?
I think his primary challenges are domestic, but the biggest challenge on the table right now for Europe is Brexit. Europe needs to handle Brexit well and it needs to be done in an equitable fashion. It cannot be done in bitterness. If it is done in an equitable fashion, I believe it will have much more powerful and positive consequences coming from the perspective of pro-Europeans like Macron and the European Commission. Brexit will show the extent to which the British economy and the other components of British existence have been fundamentally undergirded by European integration. Britain is going to be in many different small troubles; I don’t believe they will be huge troubles, economically speaking. The NHS requires people to come from eastern Europe to work for it. The same goes for many various sectors. Various industrial products are not only being exported to other EU countries, but they are tied in production chains with other countries; and all of this will be very significantly affected by Brexit. From an economic perspective, I think there will be many small fires, and then there will be the big fire, which is the politics of the United Kingdom that is going to be under major strain. If there is a difficult Brexit, the Scottish are more likely to vote to leave, but there is the big, dormant question of Ireland. Some of my Irish colleagues who know the situation well are suggesting that this could lead to violence in another form of a civil war in Northern Ireland. If the European side, of which Emmanuel Macron is going to be the actor, plays this well and does not suggest to the British or European public that they are deliberately harming Britain, they are going to try to strike an equitable deal, then all of these fires in Britain will be an obvious measure of the benefits of European integration. I believe that in 5 years’ time it will be very clear that Europe has many problems but that it’s the best game in town.
What do you believe should be the first task of Emmanuel Macron in regarding Europe and the EU ?
He’s already done the first task, which was a very big one. He campaigned under the European flag. He was the symbolist [for Europe] and the exact opposite of Marine Le Pen. And if she had won, even though she wouldn’t be able to pass any policy, the symbol of her taking power because of the types of things she has said regarding the EU, would be very meaningful. He has done the exact opposite [of Le Pen] and he won. He waved the European flag at the rallies leading up to the election; very clearly signing up for this project. He has symbolically rejuvenated Europe, and has symbolically infused the populist ‘fightback’ with the European content. Fighting populism means fighting for Europe, which is super important, and he has already done that. He’ll need to continue in that vein, but I think his biggest game is in France.
Finally, what do you think will be the impact of Emmanuel Macron’s France in the european economy ?
That is almost perfect related to his ability to reform and improve economic growth in this economy. If France manages to reform and improve its economic growth, then he will play a bigger role. There is a very strong sense that France needs to keep up at the same pace of Germany. France has always had the role of legitimizing Germany as the leading economic force. In the 50’s, France was the one who let Germany come in, which was a symbolic hug that France gave to Germany after Germany had invaded France. That component of that tandem needs to remain there. Otherwise, it could be just a German Europe, which might have particular economic outcomes, but will not have the sense of dualism or symbolic rapprochement of these two historic rivals.
Do you have anything else that you would like to add ?
My hunch is that Europe needs to weather these populist explosions and handle the next few years. It would help to have some reforms but I think that the Lisbon Treaty is a good basis for the functioning of Europe. Bigger questions remain like how do we handle fiscal matters, how do we centralize them, to what extent is there going to be control over European budgets ? These are types of things that will need to be tackled more directly, but I do not think that treaty change should be on the agenda. The Lisbon treaty is actually very similar to the constitutional treaty. And it has made the EU much more effective and simplified in many ways.
How so ?
It simplified the legislative procedures, it increased the power of the European parliament, it increased its competencies in the budgetary area on equal terms, and it has become a much more normal political system with an ordinary legislative procedure, with an ordinary budgetary procedure, it has given it the [EU] legal personality, it has simplified the voting system in the council of ministers, and has simplified it into something that is much more manageable in the long term, and much more comprehensible. Ideally, I would like to see a constitution that is like that of the United States, which is a very simple, short document, that just specifies the powers and the relative competencies and basic rights. However, those are not written anymore. That’s a document of the 18th century. That’s all.
POLITIPLAN 