Year LXVI, 2024, Single Issue, Page 94
The Federal Committee of the European Federalist Movement (Movimento Federalista Europeo, MFE), meeting in Rome on December 16, 2024, in response to Trump’s election as President of the United States and the deteriorating international situation, discussed launching a new phase of its campaign for the convening of a Convention to reform the Treaties, based on a document presented by the president and the general secretary. Here, we publish the Political Preamble.
TIME TO CREATE THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE
The political landscape following Trump’s Re-Election.
Trump’s re-election to the White House radically changes the political landscape. The US is planning a major shift in its domestic and international political direction, even compared with the recent past. For Europe, the resulting scenario will no longer be one in which it has to deal with an American administration that pursues its own interests even to the detriment of the EU (as was the case with Biden on the economic level, with the IRA for example, or on the commercial level, with the confirmation of the tariffs that Trump had instituted). It will no longer even be the fact that the US is shifting the centre of gravity of its interests towards the Pacific and trying to reduce its contribution to European security and stability, demanding greater commitment from the Europeans. With Trump, who this time round wields enormous power, we are seeing the start of a new era that is bringing to an end the objective (albeit already pursued ever less effectively) of building a world order based on rules and multilateralism. It is a scenario in which the United States is espousing aggressive nationalism and driving pure power struggles, the American president is working to weaken the strength of the federal government and deregulate, as far as possible, the economic and financial sectors, the Federal Reserve is finding its autonomy under threat, and the worst instincts and behaviours are being glorified and encouraged, fuelling hatred, fear, racism and machismo.
In this new setting, the EU is in grave danger. It is hard to say if and when it will find itself forced to face Putin’s aggression alone, together with the issue of its own security generally, but what is certain is that this moment risks coming in the worst possible way, with a Russian threat against or even attack on an EU member state. We all know very well that the EU is completely unprepared for this, and that should it find itself alone against Russian aggression, without full American support within the framework of NATO, it simply will not have the necessary time to make up its technological, industrial and logistical shortfalls. Likewise, it is practically certain that Trump will accelerate on AI, and will do so without giving much thought to the ethical use of new technologies; therefore, in this area, too, Europe’s backwardness and dependence on others leaves it dangerously exposed. Another weapon in Trump’s hands will be the tariffs that will hit the mature sectors in which the EU is traditionally strong and exports to the USA; in general, the new administration’s trade policy measures risk bringing the highly export-oriented European economy to its knees. All this fits into a new American trend in which the European Union, just like the Single Market, is seen as an obstacle to be eliminated from the path of a hegemonic power that does not want to have to deal with an interlocutor capable of reacting. The coincidence of interests between Trump and Putin in this sense is particularly dangerous. The US will undoubtedly try to use its vast power to negotiate bilaterally with single European states and will try to divide the European front in order to weaken it; Draghi himself has clearly explained how, even in the absence of the current political pressure, the member states’ foreign trade policies, which can be seen as simple, short-sighted attempts to pursue their own particular interests, were already reducing the impact of policies decided at European level.
Europe’s Situation.
The European Union has long been in decline and ill-equipped either to protect itself or to evolve in the new global context which lacks the three favourable conditions on which it had previously relied: the Chinese market as an outlet for exports; low-cost energy from Russia; and US-backed security. Similarly, signs that the Europeans themselves are dissatisfied with the EU have long been evident, ever since the start of the financial and economic crisis in 2010 and the explosion of the migration problem — crises that have led to a loss of consensus for the European project, and undermined democracy at national level. Faced with this weakness on the part of the EU and its technocratic model (as it is called by Draghi, who never stops reminding us of the need to overcome it, since it is now completely inadequate), there have been, within the EU, several concerted reactions by the member states: first, they responded with a united front to the challenge of Brexit, supporting the European institutions’ efforts not to give in to British blackmail; then, in the face of the pandemic, they granted the Commission a power of representation for the joint purchase of vaccines, essentially stepping outside the Treaties in order to do so, and then they launched the NextGenerationEU programme, thereby choosing, for the first time, to display solidarity through common debt. Against that, however, the governments have never gone so far as to consider a Treaty amendment to create a shared European sovereignty, and by allowing the EU to remain politically weak they have left room for the growth of the nationalist and illiberal forces that are now tearing the Union apart from within.
Instead, the European institutions, for their part, seized the opportunity of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) promoted by Macron to open a candid debate on the future of the EU. Directly engaging with EU citizens, they even proposed a radical revision of Europe’s political and institutional framework. The European Parliament, building on the CoFoE’s conclusions, proposed, for the first time in the 40 years since Spinelli’s draft treaty, a significant amendment to the Treaties. This proposal, aimed at initiating the creation of a federal Union, was put to the European Council, following the procedures outlined in the Treaties. For its part, the European Commission led by Ursula von der Leyen, which seems to recognise the need to strengthen the powers of the European institutions but has thus far faced opposition from member states, continued to work on this front, commissioning a report on completion of the Single Market, entrusted to Enrico Letta, which outlines the steps still needed to make the European market truly efficient, and two reports, one on competitiveness and the other on security, to be drawn up by two highly authoritative figures (Draghi and Niinistö respectively). The Commission was confident that these would confirm not only the need for a shift in European policies, but also the urgent need to rethink and reform the entire EU decision-making and financial system.
In the face of the new global scenario created in the wake of Trump’s election, the EU and its member states now have all the tools they need to identify and address the weaknesses in the European system. It is now crucial that Europe’s most forward-thinking national governments recognise that the time has come for the Europeans to develop a comprehensive strategy (or, as Draghi put it, multi-policy strategies), to be backed by effective European governance and financial mechanisms, making it possible to implement the policies needed to ensure security and restore lost competitiveness. Since it is inconceivable that all 27 member states will be on board with this from the outset, the EU will need to organise itself on different levels of integration. For this purpose, we refer to our Federalist Paper 1-2024 on the Draghi report: What the EU Needs to Halt its Decline and Regain Control of its Destiny.[1]
Our Role.
On many occasions in the course of the process of European integration, federalists have had to fight battles, including long-term ones, alone. Today the situation is radically different. Faced with the obvious and complete inadequacy of the single European states in the new world framework, Europe as a whole must now prove that it can rise to the existential challenges that are threatening to destroy our democracy and freedom, together with the entire EU edifice, and must do so immediately, without putting off the necessary decisions any longer. In the meantime, as serious consideration is given to the changes Europe requires, the federalism of Spinelli and Albertini, meaning the federalism of organised federalists, has once again become the benchmark. This is thanks to the efforts of us, as the MFE and UEF: indeed, organised federalism has returned to the fore as a result of the process triggered by the CoFoE that our organisations were able to shape politically. This is an important point to remember when seeking to address current events and the ongoing process.
So, our vanguard role (in identifying the precise points at which the power situation must move from national to European level and indicating how these points can be reached) is the same today as it ever was; now, however, we are no longer isolated and alone, given that our ideas have spread to the most advanced and aware components within the European institutions and the pro-European political forces.
This latter circumstance is demonstrated by two developments: first, within the European Parliament, the Spinelli Group is working with us (and thanks to us) to persuade the new Parliament to reaffirm the call for Treaty reform. Its influence has led to the first-ever legislative agreement between the three major pro-European forces that puts down, in writing, a commitment to reforming the Treaties. Second, the Commission is shaping its agenda around two reports on competitiveness and security, which highlight the fact that the EU’s issues stem from its technocratic model (which needs to be replaced by a political one), fragmentation, insufficient integration and lack of a supranational political leader.
Right now, particularly given the reactions to Trump’s return to the White House, there is no need to come up with new strategies. We should simply continue supporting what is already in place and ensure that the existing power structure, with its natural resistance to change and instinct for self-preservation, is not swayed into pursuing false solutions (such as the so-called energy or defence unions, which are not only inadequate to provide the EU with its own strategic autonomy, something that can only be achieved by implementing a whole series of ‘multi-policies’, which moreover would need to be built within the framework of a true European foreign policy, but also unachievable without amendment of the Treaties). As is clear from the European Parliament’s resolution, the Draghi and Niinistö reports, and the responses from the more progressive governments, the debate among pro-European groups, at both European and national levels, is already evolving around the need for a radical shift in the EU’s framework and the creation of European democratic sovereignty.
This profound change — which must lead the EU to take on the character of a state, albeit with its political and institutional specificity as a federal Union, equipping itself with a democratic government that is autonomous in its competences — is therefore the objective to keep in mind in order to direct the pro-European forces onto the right terrain. This is not to say that the Convention will necessarily be the first step in this direction. On the one hand, the urgent need to reform existing common financing mechanisms to secure resources not available at national level may drive efforts to raise new ‘dedicated’ European debt. This could be aimed at strengthening the defence industry, advancing strategic technological sectors, closing the productivity gap, or supporting sustainable decarbonisation. And it is conceivable that such initiatives could be the factor that causes the 27-member EU framework to break down. Alternatively, it may be that the Commission — tasked by the European Council to present, by the middle of next year, proposals on the reform of European governance in preparation for enlargement, together with measures to address the issues of competitiveness and security — will prove capable of putting forward important proposals, which could also divide the member states and encourage the most advanced group to progress further. On the other hand, it is highly likely that we will soon see departures by some member states, whose efforts to seek closer ties with the Trump administration could undermine European unity. And governments that are more committed to European values might respond to this by pushing forward with collective initiatives to develop certain instruments.
If such scenarios were to occur, the essential fact remains that these instruments would have to be placed within a new legal framework to ensure their sustainability; and, in this regard, the fact that we have the possibility to launch the Convention, with all its merits, remains the decisive point. Therefore, similar to Spinelli’s approach with the EDC, we do not focus on getting governments to move towards some intergovernmental proposal or instrument; after all, that is what they are naturally inclined to do. Instead, we strive to mobilise society’s active forces in a bid to raise awareness that the real solution lies in transitioning to a federal political union. And the demand for this must arise at grassroots level, to bolster the work of those who, in one way or another, are already seeking to further this cause within the institutions.
As the MFE, we will have an important role to play in Italy too. Our government, with its unresolved, indeed deepening, ambiguities, is at risk in this new phase that is now beginning. We must actively monitor and denounce its missteps, encouraging the opposition to prioritise the European issue as a central topic for discussion and criticism, particularly in view of the Italian parliament’s possible imminent involvement in the EU reform debate.
Stefano Castagnoli
Luisa Trumellini
[1] MFE, What the EU Needs to Halt Its Decline and Regain Control of Its Destiny. The Draghi Report on European Competitiveness, https://federalists.eu/federalist-library/what-the-eu-needs-to-halt-its-decline-and-regain-control-of-its-destiny-the-draghi-report-on-european-competitiveness/; also published in: The Federalist, current issue, p. 143.
