We need a new way of narrating Europe. We need it above all to counter the populist drift that has made anti-Europeanism its motto. Data provided by the Eurobarometer, the instrument measuring the belief of European citizens in the idea of Europe, shows that the vision of the founding fathers is in free fall. In 2008, 75% of Italian citizens were strongly convinced that the European project was a good thing, while today there is a risk that this percentage will drop below 50%.
Four factors have led to this situation. The first is enlargement, which is no longer merely a geographical but now also an ideological concept. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Italian Constitutional Court, considered the most prestigious and recognisable by public opinion only ten years ago, has now lost its primacy to the European Court of Justice. And again, globalisation has found Europe unprepared, forcing it to compete – and often to succumb – to perfect oligopolies and command economies. The euro and its complexity – it has also been suggested – tend to divide rather than unite. Finally, European treaties are bereft of the tools needed to tackle a system crisis like the one that began in 2008.
All this has led to the spread of disenchantment, scepticism and a strong anti-European sentiment among European citizens. Faced with the possibility of a Greek default, the Ukrainian crisis and the divisions in an already inadequate European policy, some of us are beginning to feel that the construction of a political Europe is no longer that unshakeable, irreversible process that we took for granted only a few years ago.
It has been said that in 2003 no European state figured among the first seven global economies. The reality of an economically strong Europe frequently comes to a halt in the face of continuous conflicts between national regulations and European legislation. In fact, Italy holds the unflattering record of infraction procedures and sentences. And that is without even mentioning the irrecoverable loss of public money caused by the failure to use structural funds.
A new European narration is also needed for enterprises whose experience of a continental reality is often limited to their encounters with frequently incomprehensible constraints and rules: the vision summoned by the tendency to regulate everything in minute detail is one of an overbearing, oppressive entity rather than a winning model. Just consider, for example, the last issue of the Official Journal of the European Union, which was 11,000 pages long. Although the Europe of finance and banks may enjoy huge benefits, and the Europe of large-sized enterprises take advantage of the euro and the internal market, there is no trace of a European project for the SMEs accounting for no less than 90% of the continent’s industrial world. We also need to tackle the glaring asymmetry between the movement of capital and the movement of human capital. The movement of workforces has yet to be conceived as a return ticket when the movement is from a less wealthy country like Portugal, for example, to a country with a more solid economy like Germany.
In order to defeat scepticism – and there is no lack of optimists if truth be told – Europe needs to be proactive with regard to several key aspects of its identity: the single market and its completion, the modernisation of the public administration and the improvement of civil justice, the European digital agenda, and the harmonisation of energy policies. It must also strengthen its monitoring mechanisms for fiscal policies and relaunch its industrial policy. In a globalised world, where everyone reasons in terms of blocks, the regional role is fundamental, and the EU is expected to raise its voice on the most burning issues. Regretfully, its role has become more and more marginal. And that is without even considering that in the face of the real risk of “losing” Great Britain after the referendum, Europe has so far failed to come up with any concrete responses to Cameron’s requests. And some believe that generic proposals for greater integration will cut no ice. Even more so considering the EU’s divided reaction to a real and serious problem like the migrant crisis that has seemingly forgotten the fundamentals of a proper integration process.
The European summit at the end of June should bring the political focus back to the Commission rather than the Council. The updated report of the Four Presidents, which also involved the contribution of the European parliament, could be a road map representing a new start towards convergence and integration, the redefinition of common rules and reacquisition of authoritativeness on a global scale.
It would undoubtedly be wise to redirect the construction of Europe towards greater rationality, recalling Albert Camus’ 1955 vision of a Europe resting on two pillars: the defence of human dignity and Cartesian reason. At the time there were some doubts with regard to the former, but there was no hesitation about the latter. Today, while no one doubts the value of human dignity, we seem to have lost the pillar of reason that once seemed so unshakeable.