FROM CONFEDERACY TO FEDERATION
A speech by Joschka Fischer in Berlin, 12 May, 2000

Robert Schuman presented his vision of a "European Federation" for the preservation of peace. The concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of transfering nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions.  

 Fifty years on, the process of European integration is probably the biggest political challenge facing the states and peoples involved, because its success or failure will be of crucial importance to the future of every one of us, but especially the young generation. Yet this process of European integration, questioned by many people, is viewed as a Eurocratic affair run by a faceless, soulless Eurocracy in Brussels. The introduction of the single currency, the EU's incipient eastern enlargement, the crisis of the last EU Commission, the poor acceptance of the European Parliament and low turn-outs for European elections, wars in the Balkans and the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy define the achievements, as well as determine the challenges ahead.  

 In the coming decade we must enlarge the EU to the east and south-east, doubling the number of members. To meet this historic challenge and integrate the new member states without substantially denting the EU's capacity for action,we must put into place the last brick in the building of European integration, namely political integration.   

The new principle of the European system of states [integration, beginning with economic links], emanated from France and her two great statesmen Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet. Every stage of its realization, from the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community to the creation of the single market and the introduction of the single currency depended essentially on the alliance of Franco-German interests. This was never exclusive, but always open to other European states, and so it should remain until finality has been achieved.   

For fifty years the division of Europe cut right through Germany and Berlin, and to the east of the Wall and barbed wire an indispensable part of Europe waited for its chance to take part in the European unification process, which came with the end of the division of Europe and Germany in 1989/90. Schuman saw this quite clearly back in 1963: "We must build the united Europe not only in the interest of the free nations, but also in order to be able to admit the peoples of Eastern Europe into this community if, freed from the constraints under which they live, they want to join." The geopolitical reality after 1989 left no serious alternative to the eastward enlargement of the European institutions. In response to this historic turnaround, the EU consistently embarked upon a far-reaching process of reform.

 - In Maastricht [Netherlands] one of the three essential sovereign rights of the modern nation-state -- currency, internal security and external security -- was for the first time transferred to the sole responsibility of a European institution. The introduction of the Euro, the crowning-point of economic integration, was also a profoundly political act, because currency symbolizes the power of the sovereign who guarantees it. A tension has emerged between the communitarization of the economy and currency on the one hand and the lack of political and democratic structures on the other, a tension which might lead to crises within the EU if we do not take productive steps to make good the shortfall in political integration and democracy.
 - The European Council in Tampere [Finland] marked the development of a common area of justice and internal security, making the Europe of the citizens a tangible reality. Common laws can be a highly integrative force.
 - The European Council in Tampere [Finland] marked the development of a common area of justice and internal security, making the Europe of the citizens a tangible reality. Common laws can be a highly integrative force.
 - The war in Kosovo prompted the European states to strengthen their joint capacity for action on foreign policy, agreeing in Koeln and Helsinki on a new goal: the development of a Common Security and Defense Policy.   Thus we in Europe currently face the enormously difficult task of organizing two major projects in parallel:

1. Enlargement as quickly as possible. This poses difficult problems of adaptation. It also triggers fear and anxiety in our citizens: are their jobs at risk? Nonetheless, this is a unique opportunity to unite our continent in peace, security, democracy and prosperity.
2. Europe's capacity to act. The institutions of the EU, created for 6 member states, barely function with 15. While the first step towards reform, at the upcoming intergovernmental conference -- introducing increased majority voting -- is important, it is insufficient for integration as a whole. The danger will then be that enlargement to include 27 or 30 members will hopelessly overload the EU's old institutions and mechanisms, leading to severe crises.

  Resolving three key questions -- the composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and particularly the extension of majority decision -- is indispensable for the smooth continuation of the process of enlargement. As the next step these three questions have absolute priority.

  As the next step for the future of the EU, we must begin to think beyond the enlargement process and consider how a future "large" EU can function as it ought to, and what shape it must therefore take. Enlargement will render imperative a fundamental reform of the European institutions. How would a European Council with thirty heads of state and government balance interests, take decisions and then actually act? How can one prevent the EU from becoming utterly intransparent, compromises from becoming more incomprehensible, and the citizen's acceptance of the EU from eventually hitting rock bottom?   

There is a very simple answer: the transition from a union of states to full parliamentarization as a European Federation, something Robert Schuman demanded 50 years ago. And that means nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within the Federation. This federation will have to be based on a constituent treaty.   

Of course, this is immediately criticized as being utterly unworkable. Europe is not a new continent, it is said, but full of different peoples, cultures, languages and histories. The nation-states are realities that cannot simply be erased, and the more globalization and Europeanization create superstructures and anonymous actors remote from the citizens, the more people will cling to the nation-states that give them comfort and security.  

 That is why it would be an irreparable mistake to complete political integration against the existing national institutions and traditions rather than by involving them. European integration can only be successfull if based on a division of sovereignty between Europe and the nation-state. This is the idea underlying the concept of "subsidiarity", a subject being discussed by everyone and understood by virtually no one.  

 So what must be understood by the term "division of sovereignty". A European Parliament must always represent two things: a Europe of the nation-states and a Europe of the citizens. This is possible only if this European Parliament brings together the different national political elites and the different national publics.   

This can be done if the European Parliament has two chambers. With one for elected members who are also members of their national parliaments there will be no clash between national parliaments and the European Parliament. For the second chamber either the senate model, with directly-elected senators from the member states, or a chamber of states along the lines of Germany's Bundesrat. In the U.S.A., every state elects two senators; in our Bundesrat there are different numbers of votes.   

Similarly, there are two options for the European executive, or government: one developing the European Council into a European government formed from the national governments or, starting with the existing Commission structure, direct election of a president with far-reaching executive powers. There are other possibilities.   

The division of sovereignty between the Union and the nation-states requires a constituent treaty which enshrines the principle of subsidiarity. There should be a clear definition of the competences of the Union and the nation-states respectively in the treaty, with core sovereignties and matters which absolutely have to be regulated at European level being the domain of the Federation, whereas everything else would remain the responsibility of the nation-states. This would be a lean European Federation, but one capable of action, fully sovereign yet based on self-confident nation-states, and it would also be a Union which the citizens could understand. The nation-states will continue to exist and at the European level they will retain a much larger role than the Laender have in Germany.  

 These three reforms -- the solution of the democracy problem and the need for fundamental reordering of competences both horizontally, i.e. among the European institutions, and vertically, i.e. between Europe, the nation-state and the regions -- will only succeed if Europe is established anew through the realization of a European constitution centered around basic human and civil rights, an equal division of powers between the European institutions and a precise delineation between the Federation and the nation-state.  

 In the past, European integration was based on the "Monnet method," conceived in the 1950's, with its communitarization approach to European institutions and policy, which was of only limited use for the political integration and democratization of Europe. That is why Jacques Delors, Helmut Schmidt and Valery d'Estaing recently sought new answers to this dilemma. Delors' idea is that a "federation of nation-states", comprising the six founding states of the European Community, should conclude a "treaty within the treaty" with a view to making far-reaching reforms in the European institutions. Schmidt and Giscard place the Euro-11 states at the center, rather than just the six founding states. In 1994 Karl Lamers and Wolfgang Schauble had proposed the creation of a "core Europe".  

 So the EU will at some time within the next ten years be confronted with this alternative: will a majority of member states take the leap into full integration and agree on a European constitution? Or, will a smaller group of member states which are staunchly committed to the European ideal push ahead with political integration.   

One could imagine Europe's further development far beyond the coming decade in two or three stages:   

First, the expansion of cooperation between those states which want to cooperate more closely than others, as is already the case with the Economic and Monetary Union and Schengen. We can make progress on the further development of Euro-11 to a politico-economic union, on environmental protection, the fight against crime, the development of common immigration and asylum policies and of course on foreign and security policy.  

 One possible interim step: a group of states would conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of a constitution of the Federation. Based on this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which within the EU should speak with one voice on behalf of the members of the group on as many issues as possible, a strong parliament and a directly elected president. Such a center of gravity would be the driving force for the completion of political integration and should comprise all the elements of the future federation. It must remain open to all member states and candidate countries. For those who wish to participate but don't fulfill the requirements, there must be a possibility to be drawn closer in. Transparency and the opportunity for all EU member states to participate would be essential factors governing the acceptance and feasibility of the project.  

 If one follows Hans-Dietrich Genscher's tenet that no member state can be forced to go further than it is able or willing to go, but that those unwilling to go any farther cannot prevent others from doing so, then the center of gravity emerges within the treaties; otherwise, outside them.   

The last step will be completion of integration in a European Federation. The steps towards a constituent treaty require a deliberate political act to reestablish Europe. This is my personal vision for the future: from closer cooperation towards a European constituent treaty and the completion of Robert Schuman's great idea of a European Federation.