A former parliamentarian, Jean-Yves Autexier is president of Refondation Républicaine, a political party created on the initiative of Jean-Pierre Chevènement.
Within the European Union, as a result of the war in Ukraine, essential changes between nation states are taking place.
Following the French (speech at the Sorbonne by President Macron in 2017) and German proposals recently, a debate could quickly begin on the institutional system that Europe should adopt to face not only war but also major challenges of the future.
President Macron had essentially focused his 2017 speech on institutional issues, proposing in particular the notions of "European sovereignty" and "European political community".
Germany, it will be remembered, had reacted to these proposals by plunging into a deep political lethargy.
The context created today by the Russian invasion of
Chancellor Scholz thus formulates, in his speech in Prague on August 29, 2022, proposals which deserve attention because they mark a turning point in the Franco-German balance and within the very European whole: creation a European Security Council (a European Council of Defense Ministers), which could implement a rapid intervention force with qualified majority decisions.
The same goes for energy, social issues, immigration, tax reform and the treatment of the debt, power given to the Commission to defend, within the EU, "values and the rule of law", in reinforcing a disciplinary policy towards recalcitrant States by modifying Article 7 of the European Treaty.
The Chancellor specifies, while rejecting the idea of
The two radical innovations since the end of the Second World War concern the common defense policy and the unanimity rule in the Union's voting system.
On defense, it's a 180 degree turn legitimized by the Russian intervention in Ukraine.
Chancellor Scholz specifies that an armament effort amounting to 100 billion will be oriented in two directions: the protection of the Eastern States and the strengthening of NATO.
It clearly stipulates that all the efforts made in terms of air defense must be designed within a European
“operability”
of which
“all the capabilities must be deployed within NATO”
.
“Germany will design this future air defense in such a way that our European neighbors can be involved if necessary – such as the Poles, the Balts, the Dutch, the Czechs, the Slovaks or our Scandinavian partners.”
In other words, if Germany has no nuclear strike power of its own, it will have a super
Bundeswehr
to protect
“neighbors to the West and East…”
As much to say it clearly: the proposal of the qualified majority is inadmissible, because it is an unbearable attack on national independence.
If France enters into this logic, it is the end of national independence.
Jean-Yves Autexier
Olaf Scholz wants to put an end to the rule of unanimity in the Council, replacing it with that of qualified majority.
This proposition should not be taken lightly either.
If it were to be adopted, all the subtle and effective balance between nations that characterizes European construction would be transformed.
It means in the long term the ejection of France from the UN Security Council, because it would end up being replaced by an EU representative, which corresponds to a repeated request from almost all the members of The union.
This means that the European Union would no longer function as a union of nation-states with their own interests but as the juxtaposition of European members of a large body which would be Europe.
In other words, that
it would be increasingly difficult to invoke the national interest defense clause, if necessary.
You have to be aware of the gear that would be engaged.
As much to say it clearly: it is inadmissible, because it is an unbearable attack on national independence.
If France enters into this logic, despite all the precautions of language, it is the end of national independence.
Other considerations also encourage us to think twice before abandoning the rule of unanimity: this constitutes in fact a powerful mechanism of solidarity between the members of the Union, whereas the rule of qualified majority risks always to bring about a "disruptive" dynamic, or a "break in obedience", on the part of those who would have too much to lose in the consequences of the decisions thus adopted.
In other words: there is no guarantee that the risk of “paralysis” (which forces negotiations to continue to reach a satisfactory agreement between all) is more dangerous than “disruption”, which imposes a majority logic on states in disagreement.
In fact, the whole history of European construction shows that the principle of
unanimity on matters considered essential by European nations is the best guarantee of solidarity between all.
There is no European nation but for the moment only 28 different peoples.
The democratic "miracle", based on the law of the majority, exists in fact only within a State and at the heart of a
demos
, of a nation forged by history and a common identity.
Qualified majority voting, when it concerns areas of national interest, therefore has no legitimacy in the absence of a European nation.
A Europe of nations is the profound meaning that a “European political community” can have, and in which the idea of European strategic autonomy on a world scale could finally be projected.
Jean-Yves Autexier
The independence of the French nation remains the fundamental basis of our belonging to Europe.
A Europe of nations that functions in the political sphere, as it does today, in the form of a de facto confederation, in no way prevents the development of virtuous cooperation in all areas.
This is the profound meaning that a “European political community” can have, and in which the idea of European strategic autonomy on a world scale could finally be projected.
But this idea remains fragile.
On the one hand because, applied to the current functioning of the EU, it is in increasingly open contradiction with the strengthening of the powers of the Commission, which today intervenes in areas which are not within its competence, such as health policy or
affirmation of international positions dictated by the war in Ukraine, reinforced by the increasingly praetorian position of the Court of Justice of the EU.
On the other hand, because the advances in the direction of confederation are today limited to the French proposal for a political Union which Chancellor Scholz in his speech emptied of its scope, indicating that political dialogue should not obstacle to enlargement: yet, as we have seen, enlargement, in the form it proposes, develops and strengthens federalism.
Europe, and France, cannot accept being caught between the United States and China.
They cannot desire either vassalage or alignment, as President Macron reminds us.
In this global context, the Europe of the nations will appear as the main tool for common European projects in all areas.
A global negotiation, concerning the institutional system which must indeed be adapted to the challenges of the 21st century, is desirable, but we do not accept that qualified majority voting replaces the rule of unanimity in areas which engage the national interest and the independence of France, such as defence, security, foreign policy, immigration, etc.
We support the idea of