,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
@SimonKuperFT gets it exactly right: "We now have what Charles de Gaulle called a “Europe of nations”, in which the big decisions are made not by Brussels bureaucrats, or the European parliament, but by national leaders acting in concert." ft.com/content/c939db…
"Though national politicians commute to Brussels to represent their nation states, this isn’t old-style nationalism. Probably never before have different countries anywhere worked together on such an everyday basis. It’s a genuine concert of nations."
"Brexiters who rail against “unelected Brussels bureaucrats” and the “meddling European superstate” haven’t absorbed this reality. In fact, most Europeans who “meddle” in British affairs are elected national leaders."
"The only big recent federalist advances have been made to complete the main federalist project of the previous generation: the euro. That has given us a mighty European central bank, the European stability mechanism and something like banking union."
"Otherwise, federalists look on in frustration. They worry about the Commission shrinking into a mere bureaucracy charged with executing the Council’s decisions."
Cf also my piece from 2015: "Despite repeated predictions to the contrary, Europe is not falling apart. It is tackling the big crises together, with the regular meetings of heads of state becoming the central platform for decision making." nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opi…
"The new European Union is redefining the role of the nation state without replacing it. It is overwhelmingly intergovernmental, built around cooperation among nation states. It is based on deal making, with the German chancellor as the power broker at the center."
"And while in the past the European Union was built and administered by bureaucrats, largely hidden from the public, the new union is deeply political. The time of backdoor deals in Brussels is over."
Further thought: This real, existing EU -- quite different from the federal visions -- is working quite well, every day, producing a specific kind of international governance. But it is rarely analyzed and poorly understood, because most observers are caught up in federal ideas.
Only if we get better in analyzing this European reality we can value, preserve and defend what we have achieved in Europe. And improve it, not necessarily guided by federalist visions (which are ultimately limited by the analogy of the state) but by practical needs.
