The debate Europe dares not settle

With its defence and foreign policies becoming more and more assertive, the Union is changing in character. Faced with the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the uncertainty now surrounding the US security umbrella, it is becoming a political power, and no longer merely an economic one.

It is increasing its military spending. It has prevented Donald Trump from annexing Greenland and from striking a deal with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine’s head, whilst arming and funding the resistance there. Faced with Chinese dumping, it has even gone so far as to abandon its commitment to free trade.

Everything is changing in Europe, but the EU is moving far too slowly, given how difficult it is for its 27 Member States to determine the question: with what to replace institutions that had been designed for a common market, and not for a political power?

The Union needs an incarnation. It needs an executive capable of making decisions as swiftly as the Chinese, Russian or American presidents. It needs to be able to act as the political power it is becoming, but should the European Union then become a federal or a confederal union?

They are not the same thing. They are not the same project at all.

In a federal Union, the European states would cede the bulk of their political powers to the United States of Europe, just as the US states did to the United States of America. In a confederal Union, by contrast, the European states would retain all their political powers and would take their diplomatic and military decisions only after consultation amongst their national leaders.

In a United States of Europe, the executive would be elected by pan-European universal suffrage. It would derive its legitimacy from this, and the President of the Union would then exercise their power with the support of the Commission and govern under the scrutiny of a Parliament with extensive powers.

In a confederal Union, it would be the 27 national leaders, more than ever, who would be at the helm through the European Council – their assembly, which would thus become a collegial presidency of the Union embodied by its president.

These two possibilities are so diametrically opposed that they are already clashing behind the scenes and even in the public eye. On 6 April 2021, when the President of the Council and the President of the Commission were received by the Turkish Head of State, and there were only two armchairs available, with Ursula von der Leyen finding herself relegated to a sofa, this was not merely a matter of rudeness. Charles Michel had intended to signal the primacy of the Council presidency over that of the Commission, and when Ursula von der Leyen is now doing everything she can to assert her control over the European External Action Service and the Union’s diplomacy, she is not merely expressing a personal ambition. She is, in fact, taking a stand in favour of a federal Union whose executive could only emerge from an elected Commission presidency.

In this age-old debate, which the new international landscape is only serving to reignite, the federalists have two major strengths. One is that a federal Union would have all the advantages of an institutional revolution sweeping away skilful but incomprehensible treaties. The other is that anyone can easily envisage what the United States of Europe would look like, since its model would be largely inspired by the United States of America.

The confederal option, on the other hand, would introduce a major change by strengthening the Council at the expense of the Commission, but would do little to bring greater clarity to the current institutions. It therefore has little to offer in the way of appeal, but would have three advantages: it would significantly limit the possibility of a far-right figure being elected as President of the Union; it would preserve the need for compromise between Europe’s political families; and it would ensure that major decisions – those that would shape Europe’s future – do not split the Union. We do not like to think of it, as it is hardly glorious, but we must undoubtedly choose prudence over panache.