As Altiero Spinelli once observed: “Europe will not fall from the sky”, but rather needs to be built from the ground up with the involvement of everyone. These words served as the opening premise for discussions at this Aspen Junior Fellows Conference on the new challenges that will shape the cohesion and future of the European Union. On one hand, the Conference set out to address the question of the kind of new models that could guarantee prosperity and employment for all Europeans by mitigating the widening imbalances between generations. On the other, it sought to facilitate a debate on the constraints placed on democracy by the increasing loss of sovereignty of Europe’s Member States.
The theme of the Conference was tackled in a debate that focused on three areas of discussion, namely: proposals and resources for a future Europe; ensuring shared prosperity through economic – and particularly industrial – development; and Italy’s role in the new European governance framework, together with the costs and benefits that this will entail.
Discussion thus ensued regarding recent European events that have seen the crisis in Greece degenerate into a eurozone meltdown. The challenge posed – it was suggested – is that of maintaining Europe’s current political cohesion and economic integration by combining austerity with growth. Constraints on national budgets prevent any individual governments from adopting expansionary policies, and reforms themselves have negative pro-cyclical effects. It was therefore seen as crucial for rebalancing mechanisms not available at the national level to be adopted at the European level, and in particular, a supranational fiscal capacity equipped to absorb asymmetric shocks. The participants acknowledged the risk of the likely emergence of a multispeed Europe whose changeable configuration will be difficult to manage, especially from an internal market perspective, and which will be a far cry from the federal model envisioned by the founding fathers. In this regard, it was noted that the contours of the European construct are still hybrid in nature, marking out an organizational structure that is in part international and in part a creature of constitution. Forsaking this architecture for a federal Europe is a fundamental choice that requires a change in the legal and political order of Member States, and as such should come from the people, not governments in isolation in an intergovernmental conference. Adding further depth to the discussions was a debate between proponents of a liberal Europe, in which those who perform best are rewarded accordingly, and those advocating an inclusive Europe, in which countries in difficulty are not left stranded. The participants nevertheless expressed their hope that current levels of European cohesion would be maintained, underlining that taken alone, Member States – including Germany – would become marginal players in a globally competitive arena. It was stressed that the ramifications of this issue are not just economic, but also impact on the advancement of values such as human rights and environmental protection, which can only be promoted at a global level with the weight of a united European front.
The participants then turned their attentions to the European economy, with particular regard to the “reindustrialization” of Europe. Specific reference was made to the European Commission Communication of 10 October 2012, the stated aim of which is to promote a rise in manufacturing’s share of European GDP from the current 15.6% to 20% by 2020. It was noted that industry still accounts for four-fifths of Europe’s exports and that 80% of private sector R&D investment comes from manufacturing. This presents a key challenge for Italy, which remains – despite the crisis – Europe’s second largest manufacturing country in terms of value added, employment and industrial exports. Italy, Germany and France (together with certain Eastern European countries, such as Poland) enable Europe to compete with the major emerging economic blocs. To that end, calls were made for the focus of the EU Pact for Growth and Employment – proposed last June by the European Commission with the aim of offsetting the recessionary effects of the fiscal compact – to be strengthened and honed. In particular, it was felt that specific importance should be accorded to initiatives for financing trans-European infrastructure networks and projects, together with instruments – such as project bonds – capable of encouraging such investments.
Emphasis was also placed on the importance of ensuring that European governance is not reduced to a duopoly, and that of instilling a renewed appreciation of the contribution made by Italy towards the evolution of that governance framework. Without indulging in panegyrics, the legacy of key figures from Italy that were involved in shaping the Europe of today was reexamined, underlining the need for a concerted push to rekindle that same driving spirit, a task which it was felt could be achieved by making greater efforts to convey the present implications of the process they helped set in motion. It was suggested that Italy, despite being a founding member and playing a pivotal role in healing Franco-German rifts, must overcome the gulf that exists between the almost unanimous support voiced for the idea of a united Europe and actions which gainsay it. The crisis has also brought to a head the need to address the issue of the transfer of sovereign powers from national states to Europe. It is has become imperative for citizens to be reassured that this transfer of sovereignty does not entail an erosion of their guaranteed freedoms. European leadership consequently needs to be imbued with greater democratic legitimacy, for instance, by providing that the President of the European Commission be directly elected, and by vesting the European Parliament with greater power to initiate legislative proposals. It was thus highlighted that the challenge posed by Europe is not technical but political in nature.
In rounding up the discussions, reference was made to an often-cited quote by Jean Monnet, who stated that the essence of the European project consisted not merely in “bringing together states, but uniting people”. Out of the seed of this idea grew the accomplishment of the founding fathers’ goal of lasting peace and trade integration. Without denying the difficulties inherent in meeting further new objectives, the Conference participants were agreed that Europe is an ideal that must be nourished through open and pragmatic exchange. It was noted, in conclusion, that Thomas Mann once described Europe as “the theatre of rebellion, [and] the sphere of intellectual discrimination and transforming activity”, but the challenge remains the same as it always was, that of engendering social and economic value.