Posted by Hans Müller on March 1, 2022 at 15:24 p.m

(August 22, 2020)

On August 13.8.20, XNUMX, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on the concerns of the billionaire and philanthropist under the headline "Europe's fate is driving him around". George Soros about the future of Europe. The Hungarian-born Soros, who recently turned 90, warns that the European Union is drifting apart. With his foundation, Soros promotes the development of open societies, especially in Eastern Europe. His country of birth, Hungary, did not thank him for this: the Central European University in Budapest had to close, although the Hungarian head of government Viktor Orban was able to study at Oxford on a Soros scholarship.

But not only George Soros, many other Europeans and European organizations are also concerned about the future of Europe. Most agree that the European integration process needs to get going again. There must be no complacent standstill in Europe. The almost inconspicuous wording printed in Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) about the "realization of an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe" must come more to the fore. The catalog of values ​​of the European Union listed in Article 2 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which is binding for all member states, make it clear that the Union has become much more than that since its beginnings, i.e. a free trade area, the success or failure of which is reflected in the balance sheets of commercial enterprises in the 27th century Member States can be read. However, the protracted discussions about the rule of law mechanism during and after the most recent special summit of the heads of state and government have shown that the level of integration that has now been achieved has not yet become a matter of course.

It sounds strange how the governments in Warsaw and Budapest are defending themselves against accusations of violating EU values; whose justification has already been confirmed in several proceedings before the ECJ. Poland and Hungary react to this in a similar way to China when it comes to Hong Kong: they insist on their own sovereignty and object to interference in “internal affairs”. But there is one essential difference: Poland and Hungary signed and promised to uphold European values ​​when they joined the EU. Christian Moss, the Secretary General of Europa-Union Germany states in No. 3/2020 of the Europa-Union magazine “Europa aktiv”: “The ways and detours we ultimately use to achieve the longed-for goal of a European federal state are of secondary importance. Its liberal constitution must not be in doubt.”
When it comes to the rule of law, all eyes are now on the European Parliament, which still has to approve the Council's resolutions and, in my opinion, has rightly called for changes and additions. But on what "paths and detours" can the goal of a European federal state be achieved?

Javier Giner, a board member of the Federal Alliance of European Federalists (FAEF), of which I am not yet familiar, submitted the draft of a European federal constitution that his organization had drawn up to the forum of the Heilbronn district association of the Europa-Union. The core demand of the FAEF can be found on the Internet and reads: "Establishment of the United States of Europe on the basis of a federal constitution." to deal with the European project. The FAEF has recognized the risk of the new constitution failing, which is particularly great if it is to be introduced simultaneously in all 27 member states. It is still vaguely remembered how the 2005 constitution drafted by the Convention failed because voters in France and the Netherlands voted “No”. According to the FAEF, the new constitution should therefore be implemented – to a certain extent with a “coalition of the willing” – via Article 20 TEU.

The presentation of details of the draft constitution should be omitted here; this would go beyond my post. However, the question of what options are contained in Article 20 TEU is interesting. However, it can quickly embarrass even a convinced European who is unfamiliar with European contract law. Article 20 TEU is about “enhanced cooperation” between at least nine member states with the aim of “promoting the achievement of the Union’s goals, protecting its interests and strengthening its integration process.”

So far I have assumed that this EUV article can above all be a way to make progress in individual policy areas in which no common solution can be achieved by all members. One example is migration and refugee policy. For me, the fundamental question is: can the integration process be strengthened when nine or more - but not all - EU Member States are operating on a new and completely different legal basis than the others, namely on a federal constitution, with different organs, and different decision-making processes while the other members continue to rely on the Lisbon Treaty?

Article 20(4) describes what consequences such different legal bases can have. Paragraph 4 reads: “Only the Member States involved in this cooperation are bound by the legal acts enacted within the framework of enhanced cooperation. They are not considered to be an acquis that must be accepted by states willing to join.” One consequence can therefore be that different laws arise within the EU, fundamentally, in the foundation of the Union. If at least nine members work together in an individual area, for example in migration and refugee policy, only the members involved are bound by the legal acts passed; the rest are unaffected. However, if “enhanced cooperation” takes place in the area of ​​the legal basis, when the Union is constituted, then I fear that the member states will drift apart at the foundations of the European house. The warning quoted above George Soros could then take on a whole new dimension.
The "enhanced cooperation" procedure under Article 20 TEU was recently described in a publication as a means of increasing flexibility (Ulrich Brasche: "Ever closer Union? – How the EU can develop productively”; in "From Politics and Contemporary History (APuZ) - Journal of the Federal Agency for Civic Education, No. 23-25/2020, June 2.6.2020nd, 20). The treatise states that this path has so far only been followed for a few topics; eg in European patent law, in divorce law for international couples, in the European Public Prosecutor's Office and in ongoing structured cooperation in military projects. This is followed by an important statement on the effect of the route via Article XNUMX TEU: "But agreement under this procedure also takes a lot of time."

The overall title of the quoted APuZ issue is: "European construction sites". A number of authors are always asking themselves the current questions "How can the Union be further developed? How to prevent others from following the British example? And how do you deal with member states that are already moving away from it within the Union on issues of common European values ​​such as the rule of law?” Johannes Piepenbrink writes in the editorial: "If it's up to the President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen goes, it (the "Green Deal") could prove to be an opportunity, especially in the current crisis." Despite all the impatience about the slowness of the European integration process, I too see the current Corona crisis as an opportunity for a new impetus. The EU has recently appeared capable of learning and has seen the pandemic as an opportunity. Unlike the financial crisis and the austerity recipe of the "Swabian housewife". which was implemented outside the EU, France and Germany worked together during the Corona crisis - surprising for many Europeans - and achieved a "European Keynesianism" like him Jacques Delors may have had in mind.

Mario Telo, Professor of International Relations at the Université libre de Bruxelles and the University LUISS in Rome, asks in this context whether the big step forward towards a united Europe ultimately has a realistic perspective? (Mario Telò: "One step forward and two back - The European narrative must be radically renewed"; in: Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte, No. 7/8-2020, p. 38). France and Germany said "A", actually they should now also say "B" in the further development of Europe. One perspective could be to initiate a common EU financial and economic policy with an EU finance minister. Further impetus can come from Parliament and finally: What will the “Conference on the Future of Europe”, which has now been postponed to autumn, bring? Will there be a breakthrough, something in social and cultural policy, so that the citizens can feel even more than before: This is our Europe?