Kristof Van der Cruysse
At the very centre of Cassandra's concept for a reformed EU is the concept of Euro-realism. It is an ideology which we believe to be both logic and attractive, capable of supporting a new movement of thought, both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Blind Euro-approval has reached its pinnacle in the unbridled Euro-federalism seeking unlimited transfer of national powers towards the European level. The love for our continent and the desire to see it prosperous and respected in the world by no means presupposes a full or even predominant centralisation of powers towards a European level. The nation states will always have a vital role to play, as the European level does. The common sense approach in attributing competences must go along the lines of the –alas much abused- principle of subsidiarity. Powers need only be transferred to the European level if they cannot be exercised effectively at a lower level.
Yet the application of this subsidiarity in the framework of European integration seems to go remarkably unchallenged. The European Court of Justice seems to regard further transfers to the European level as a wholesome tendency in itself and tends to rule accordingly. The resulting momentum towards "an ever closer Union" is al the more worrisome as there is little consensus of what this Union is supposed to achieve.
"l’Europe, pour quoi faire?" In absence of clear and commonly shared answers Euro-federalism must be regarded as fundamentally religious in nature, and therefore discarded. But as is usually the case with powerful religions, criticism is ill-supported. Credos and dogmas are reinforced by intimidation, rather then reasoning, a dangerous exercise which could only lay bare weaker points of the ideology…
In absence of clear and commonly shared answers Euro-federalism must be regarded as fundamentally religious in nature, and therefore discarded. But as is usually the case with powerful religions, criticism is ill-supported. Credos and dogmas are reinforced by intimidation, rather then reasoning, a dangerous exercise which could only lay bare weaker points of the ideology…
The enemies of the "one true Euro-faith" are therefore labelled Euro-sceptics, anti-Europeans. They are deemed incapable of formulating coherent criticism, and tend to be shunned in debate. After all, anyone "anti-European" must be out of their mind, extremist, populist, or at the very least "uniformed". Muttons led astray by a foul ultra-nationalist penchant?
Admittedly, not all of this is wrong. The "Euro-critics" until recently were spread out over 4-5 political groups in the EP, and even today, they do not exactly speak with one voice. Some are leftwing, some are rightwing, and they have various, often opposite reasons to be "anti-European". Some among them seem indeed to be anti-European as an essentially emotional response to the ever increasing tidal waves of pro European propaganda. Understandable is this may seem, the lack of coherence of the whole will fail to look appetizing to those who instinctively feel that the blind push for a united States of Europe is several bridges too far. In the debate pro or against more Europe every voice must be heard, yet we reject blind anti-Europeanism for the same reason we reject Euro-federalism: that it is committed to unfounded ideology and uses hollow rhetoric to compensate.
Any "ideology" in our view will fall short of expectations if it cannot provide concrete answers to the questions
a) how to increase prosperity for Europeans,
b) how to make European politics transparent and democratically accountable and
c) how to keep Europe’s countries heard in the world.
Euro-realism is aimed at just that. Steering clear of a galloping "ever widening and deepening" EU on one hand, and of an unconstructive anti-Europeanism on the other hand, it is not necessarily pitted against any form of further European integration. Indeed, in certain areas speaking with one voice would be to the benefit of the member states, and therefore increase prosperity of their respective citizens.
Under no circumstances however can we tolerate the transfer of competences and domains if they can be dealt with as effectively at the sub-European level. For the same reason, Euro-realism is opposed to the transfer of a number of policy areas under the First Pillar, under the scope of majority voting and the European Court of Justice.
Euro-realism invites to see the European Union not as a religion or goal, but rather as a means to an end. There is no clear-cut "overall acceptance" or "rejection" of European Integration, rather a more objective, domain per domain scrutiny. Legitimacy and sovereignty must in the end belong to the policy level best equipped to ensure the well-being and future of the citizen. In this light, European integration is clearly overshooting its target.
To political scientists, Euro-realism can be labelled as utilitarian, neo-functionalist. Because of its case per case approach it is certainly too nuanced to be labelled as "populist" by European federalists. But, more importantly, the inhabitants of the European member states will instinctively recognize it for what it is: a much needed dose of common sense...