WHO DRIVES THE DEBATE ABOUT EUROPE'S FUTURE?

There are many voices that drive the debate about Europe's future. When it comes to the future shape of Europe economically, socially and politically there is an absence of a common vision. There is a tumult of debate, discussion and dissension:The French/German motor is not sparking in synch. There are differences North/South; between large and small; between those who favour a more conservative fiscal approach and those who favour a more lax one; on a range of topics from defence through to labour market reform.

The Eurocrisis turned into a political crisis as well. Disagreements about the best course of action  have exposed differing interests, preferences, and views about European integration in ways that have increased tensions between EU member states.  Policies of austerity have fanned political and social tensions within EU member states, and several national governments in the Eurozone have fallen or been voted out of office as a direct or indirect result of the crisis. There is a trend towards tighter integration, with the members of the Eurozone pooling more sovereignty over economic policymaking, including plans such as the formation of a banking union, others who believe , that European integration may be approaching the political limits of what is possible. In any case, the notion of tighter integration around a Eurozone “core” is not without problems. The trend has given rise to renewed speculation about the dynamics of a multi-tier Europe with varying levels and speeds of integration. It has also created anxieties and tensions for non-euro members of the EU, most prominently visible in the strains that have emerged in the UK-EU relationship.

On 12 June 2013 President Barroso called for a European consensus adding that if we do not pull together, we will be pulled apart. “We need a consensus built on practical steps to resolve the crisis. A consensus not just on the need for growth and jobs, but on the means to achieve this. A consensus for an economically more competitive Europe and a socially more inclusive Europe. Such a consensus is not just a political formula. It is of critical importance for economic confidence for investors and for consumers. Because divisions and contradictory messages coming from different capitals are counter-productive and undermine confidence – confidence we need from financial markets, from businesses, and namely from our citizens!”

We should not only seek the agreement of most stakeholders but also try to moderate the objections of those who want a different Europe in order to reach decisions that are satisfactory to all the parties involved. For consensus decision making to work, common agreement must be emphasized over differences and substantive decisions reached. Consensus decision making emphasizes dialogue to which all participants are invited to provide input. We just cannot have a group of actors that collectively decide on a course of action that runs counter to the preferences of each member.

The toughest challenge in politics right now is resolving the tension between the best long-term policy and the best short-term politics. Nowhere is this tension clearer than in the debate over Europe. The correct policy for stakeholders is to engage, to become strong participants in the debates about Europe’s future, to build alliances and to shape an outcome to those debates consistent with the right way forward for Europe as a whole.

The essential concept of a balance between integration and the nation-state is widely shared. An approach by Europe’s leaders that focuses on clear outcomes in specific areas is what most people in Europe would, along with changes to the Eurozone, support. This agenda would be about: completion of the single market to create jobs; common defence policy in an era where global ambitions aren’t satisfied by national budgets; energy and the environment, where the gains, financial and otherwise, of cooperation could be enormous; in the fight against illegal immigration and organised crime; in art and culture and higher education, where Europe is struggling to match the USA. An approach that says: first let us ask what we want Europe to do and then let us design mechanisms to do it, would draw support across Europe.

Who drives the debate about Europe's future?

1. National politicians of core countries (Germany, France, Italy and Spain)
2. Senior EU policy makers (European Commission, European Parliament, Council Presidents, European Political parties).
3. Eurosceptics (National political parties)
4. Eurozone members (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain) and Latvia (soon to join)
5. Non-Eurozone members: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom)
6. Global trade advocates (multinational corporations, industry associations)
7. Think-tanks, foundations and academia
8. Single market advocates (United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Turkey, Ukraine)
9. EU candidates ( Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia)
10. Potential EU candidates: Albania, Boznia and Herzegovina, Kosovo)
11. Non-EU member states (Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, EEA and Switzerland)
12. Pan European (Russia, Turkey, EEA [Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Switzerland]
13. National and International Media (General and Specialized media)