(by Francescomaria Tuccillo) On 4 last March the major newspapers of the twenty-eight countries of the Union received an open letter from the President of the French Republic to the citizens of Europe. Title: For a European Renaissance. If it is true, as is true, that "the medium is the message", this unprecedented gesture represents a courageous, far-sighted and profoundly contemporary choice, where contemporaneity means the ability to interpret the urgencies of one's time without fear and imagine its evolutions in the sign of progress. Meanwhile, by the way, from a European born in Naples I cannot fail to appreciate the words dedicated to the chief town of Campania by the transalpine president: "For me, Naples is special. As Stendhal said there are two capitals in Europe. Paris and Naples ».
Beyond any parochialism, the DNA of these two polis and the codes they represent with their ancient history, marked by an incessant renewing vitality, show how profoundly true this statement is. To return to the program European Renaissance, the text was well interpreted by the French journalist and intellectual Alain Duhamel on the columns of «Libération». The almost two years of the Macron presidency are certainly not devoid of shadows, Duhamel writes: from the ambiguous management of the Benalla affair to the underestimation of the phenomenon of gilets jaunes. However, the young Elysee tenant has two qualities that are difficult to dispute: "audacity and imagination".
His letter addressed without mediation to the five hundred million Europeans shows "a courage and an ambition unprecedented in the V Republic: that of testing the forms of a new democracy". The verb "to test" is very pertinent: it allows us to glimpse that the pages of European Renaissance are for now (perhaps deliberately) a "taste" of the rebirth of the Union through new forms of democracy. What in France is called le plat de résistence- the main dish of a meal - you still cannot taste it at all. Or you can glimpse between the lines of a prose as visionary in intentions as a little shy in outlining the consequences. It is probable that the role, as often happens, constitutes a limit: the signer of the trade text is the President of the Republic, a task that in France is certainly not one of representation, and is therefore bound to find a difficult balance between the authenticity of his political vision and the compromises of the Realpolitik. This, of course, does not detract from his courage: let us not forget that in the 2017, by campaigning in the sign of Europe in an impoverished France, wounded by terrorism and manipulated in its fears by a populist pasionaria like Marine Le Pen, he assumed a considerable risk .
And on the evening of his victory, when he crossed theesplanade of the Louvre on the notes of theOde to joy, we were many to tell us that, thanks to that fast-paced boy from Amiens, our European home was avoiding the risk of total disintegration. Given this, compared to what 4 wrote in March, it seems to me that there is a need to impress a wing blow. Who, like me, does not hold institutional roles but is just a provocateur of thoughts, can give himself the freedom to try. In this blog as well as on the Facebook page Europolis it is from 2016 that my collaborators and I write about Europe and outline a path of renewal in the Union that touches not only its way of working, but its very institutions. In summary, I thought then and continue to think today that the road ahead is still and always the one indicated by the founding fathers, for whom European unity was not a sum of addenda but a progressive pooling of policies and resources, with consequent reduction of the sovereignty of the Member States.
The road ahead is still and always the one indicated by the founding fathers, for whom European unity was not a sum of addenda but a progressive pooling of policies and resources, with a consequent reduction in the sovereignty of the member states
An example among all is the 1951 Treaty of Paris. At the behest of the French foreign minister Robert Schuman, inspired in turn by the thought of Jean Monnet, European countries decided to "merge" (and not "sum up") their coal and steel production and entrust control to an organism supra. At the time of the birth of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), Schuman declared: "The merger of coal and steel production will change the destiny of these lands, which for a long time dedicated themselves to the production of war instruments of which they were the victims ... Today instead a war will become not only unthinkable, but materially impossible ».
Then he added: "World peace cannot be safeguarded except by creative efforts proportional to the dangers that threaten it". It is certainly true that politicians and thinkers of the ethical and cultural depth of Schuman himself as well as of Adenauer, De Gasperi, Monnet, Spaak, Spinelli or Simone Veil do not, unfortunately, swarm in the rooms of today's European governments. And it is equally true that the innovative audacity that these personalities have shown over the years' 50 had its roots in the drama of a ferocious internecine war, which had divided Europe into two and left it in ruins. Yet now equal "creative efforts" would be needed because, even though the tragedy of the Second World War unfortunately we have forgotten it in an age that does not cultivate the value of memory, the risks for our continent remain immense. The French president proposes a synthesis in his message: from the aggressive strategies of the great powers that consider the European continent a land of conquest to the pervasive influence of the digital giants, from the labor crisis to the increasingly urgent ecological battle to be faced, from the migratory flows from the south to the north of the world, which certainly will not stop closing some Sicilian ports, to even arrive at the very ideas of democracy and peace, which are not discounted and acquired goods forever.
Faced with these gigantic challenges, which no country would be able to face on its own despite the tendentious declarations of the sovereignists, the answer must be, in my opinion, more vigorous and more revolutionary, as was the creation of the ECSC: the creation of a European constituent table. The draft of a Constitution for Europe, which gives it the necessary legal tools to be truly united, goes back to Altiero Spinelli and the 80 years. Despite the passion without flaws of the author of Manifesto of Ventotene and the support of the founding countries (and of François Mitterrand in particular), the project failed due to the irreducible opposition of Great Britain thatcheriana, which was joined by the Danish and Greek governments. Later, in the 2013, another attempt at the Constitution was passed for the second time and for the second time rejected by the outcome of two referendums, in France and the Netherlands, and by the opposition of many secular governments to the Vatican's will to include a reference to the Christian roots of Europe. As an Italian journalist (Andrea Bonanni of "Repubblica") would have written in the 2016, it was "the most clamorous of the mistakes that derailed the EU and gave birth to that vast populist movement that today undermines the stability of the continent". Now it is increasingly urgent to correct the mistakes of the past, resume the interrupted path and, in my opinion, concentrate the constituent process around three fundamental pillars, which our ancestors would have called Moneta, Spada and Feluca.
In order to have an authoritative voice in the world and build a sustainable future, the European Union must have, in other words, political power in the sectors of the economy and labor, defense and foreign policy. And from these depart to give oneself a new institutional arrangement, which gradually expands to other areas of common interest. In his open letter, the highest office of the French Republic addresses these issues, articulating it in three paragraphs: Freedom, Protectione Progress. The text speaks in fact of protection of the euro, new trade policy, common defense, joint protection of borders. It also underlines the need for a European minimum wage, a subject dear to trade union forces and indispensable for guaranteeing fair and dignified work in all EU countries, avoiding the internal competition that today is devastating for the workers of many nations. He then adds that, in foreign policy, "a Europe that is projected into the world must be directed towards Africa, with which we must make a pact for the future".
This fundamental point has always been close to my heart, also because of my ten years spent on the African continent, which today is a land of many promises, as shown by Chinese and American activism. I have often defined Italy's vocation in Europe as the ideal bridge to Africa: its geographical position, its history and its civilization tell us this. If we could really become one, we would obtain considerable advantages in terms of commercial and cultural exchanges, job creation for us and for them, intelligent (and not demagogic) control of migration flows. Without forgetting that we would give proof of that spirit of dialogue, solidarity and openness to the world that is an integral part of the European identity. Finally, the French president insists on the "ecological struggle". And also on this issue, vital in the literal sense of the term and strongly reaffirmed by the Italian president a few days later ("We are on the verge of a global climate crisis, to avoid which global measures are needed", said Mattarella in Belluno, the 12 last March), we can only agree with him and with his ambitious goal: zero carbon within the 2050. Furthermore, the environment is the supranational urgency par excellence.
The air you breathe in Menton is the same as in Ventimiglia, the water that bathes Patras is the same as that which laps the coasts of Otranto, the torrential rains that can fall on Innsbruck arrive without a passport to Merano ... Nothing more than environmental emergencies proves how artificial the borders are
However these intentions, more than acceptable, would, in my opinion, become concrete results only in a different institutional framework: Europe should stop being "a soulless market" to finally become a political Europe, with a central executive capable of governing common interests and facing challenges that are, by their very nature, global challenges. It is evident that increasing the political role of Europe would reduce that of its old nation-states, a complex nineteenth-century model that forcibly associates ethnic-cultural entities with political superstructures. In the time of the easy popular consensus gathered by relying on fear rather than on reason, it is not easy to hope for a reduction in the sovereignty of states for those who are driving one of them. We citizens can instead ask for it forcefully because there is no other way towards a sustainable future than that which leads to a true united Europe. The way to get there is, once again, a constitutional charter drawing a common political order, without which even the ideas of the French president could become a boomerangthat feeds doubts about Europe instead of dispelling them.
Why? His text calls for the creation of a European agency for the protection of democracies, a European security council, a common border police, a European asylum office for migrants. The problem is that, in the absence of a renunciation by the Member States of their sovereignty over each of these issues, the new bodies risk being perceived as further bureaucratic burdens of consultation and control, without real power. In essence, to be effective, these supranational institutions should not overlap but replace those already existing in each individual country. For example, if there were a common European defense, states should renounce their autonomy of military intervention and their own, expensive, structures - including arms purchases - in this area. Only in this way decisions would be taken quickly, effectively and efficiently, and an obvious saving in resources would follow. In this way Europe would no longer be seen by those who live there as a cost but as a benefit. The project is ambitious and to some it might even seem crazy.
But there have never been any real changes in the world that did not seem crazy to those who, out of interest or fear, were strongly attached to the status quo? The French president himself, on the other hand, in a famous speech on Europe at the Sorbonne a few months after his election, the 26 September 2017, spoke of «ambition folle, ambition extrême»And urged the students who listened to him not to settle for small dreams. A year and a half later, the reality seen by the Elysee has probably led to greater prudence. We remain, we who can afford it, instead attached to an extreme and crazy vision. In a phase of history as disturbing as the one we are experiencing, we have the duty to dare the unattainable, reminding us of Albert Einstein: "Everyone considers it an impossible thing until someone arrives who does not know it and does it". If then to do it we will have to work hard and take one step after another on an uphill road, it doesn't matter. We cannot spare ourselves.
Everyone believes it is impossible until someone arrives who does not know and does it.
Albert Einstein
Precisely for this reason, despite the doubts, I will sign the agreement to European Renaissance and I will try to make an honest contribution in criticism and constructive in actions. I would also like to invite those who will read me and think that "Europe is not a market, but a project" to do it in turn, on the site https://eu-renaissance.org/it. If we do not embark on this journey, we will risk helplessly assisting, after the May elections, at the end of the European Union, at the end of the vision of peace and progress of its founding fathers. And at the end of many of our hopes for the future.