Beschreibung
The last fifteen years of European integration have revealed a fragile European Union. The word fragile comes from the Latin verb frangere, to break, thus referring to the risk of disintegrating the sense of unity. Due to the crises that have affected the EU on several fronts, most recently the Covid-19 pandemic, the Union has come to terms with the precariousness of the European project. In particular after Brexit, European integration has lost its teleological implication, losing the conviction of a predetermined progress. Therefore, there is the growing awareness that the lack of political will to pursue unity in Europe might jeopardise the very existence of the EU. This leads to the question of what ultimately guarantees unity in the Union or, vice versa, what is the real cause of its disintegration. The modern popular discourse in favour of European integration largely considers intergovernmentalism in the EU as the main cause of its disintegration. Intergovernmentalism refers to the method of integration that bases Member States decisions on unanimity and not on majority voting. In particular, at the European level, the intergovernmental method takes shape in those EU institutions that gather representatives of national governments, such as the European Council. The decisions by consensus taken by heads of state and government in the European Council are often criticised as ineffective, deconstructive, and shortsighted. Moreover, due to intergovernmentalism, the Union cannot aspire to any reform, as it is trapped in dead-end unanimous decision-making mechanisms with no apparent way out. According to this narrative, it would be preferable to take decisions always by majority voting within the Community method, in order to avoid possible vetoes by individual Member States. This would be the only path in Europe to preserve unity, which depends on one method of integration (Community) rather than another (intergovernmental). The aim of this thesis is to refute this argument, by demonstrating that intergovernmentalism is not, per se, a cause of European disintegration. On the contrary, quite paradoxically, today, the inter-state bargaining represents the only catalyst for possible EU progress. The basic thesis will be supported through three sub-arguments. First, in order to understand the functioning of the EU at present, intergovernmentalism fits better with reality, offering useful theoretical and intellectual tools. Second, intergovernmentalism is not a random malfunctioning mechanism in the integration process. It is the ontological expression of a Union of Member States and their changing nature within a multilevel political system like the EU. The concepts of Core State Powers and sovereignty are the two pillars underlying the rationale of intergovernmentalism in this regard. Third, intergovernmentalism cannot be both the cause of disintegration and the only way to reform the EU and move forward with the European project. This paradox is the ultimate proof of how the conceptual connection between intergovernmentalism and disintegration in the EU needs to be reexamined. This is not to say that intergovernmental decision-making method cannot result in ineffective solutions, slow or create tensions within the EU. For many years the Union has been struggling to respond effectively to crises, although the EU response to the Covid-19 pandemic might represent a positive exception in this sense. However, accusing intergovernmentalism of being the root cause of European disintegration is simplistic and therefore it is necessary to take into account the complexity of the European integration process as a whole. In particular, it is important to pay attention to the role and raison dêtre of the Member States, which are the agents of European integration. Too often, commentary about the European Union underestimates the process of state-transformation in Europe, disregarding the foundations underpinning the Member State as political construct. Too little thought is given to concepts such as sovereignty and Core State Powers, which are two key factors for better comprehending the ratio behind Member States political choices at the supranational level. By diving into European integration theory, this work offers a qualitative analysis of intergovernmentalism and its implication on the political preferences of the Member States, with a particular focus on the EU reform process. Despite innovations in the quantitative research of European integration, it is crucial to simultaneously carry on the qualitative investigation of integration that offers a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena from multiple perspectives. Moreover, together with the study of EU policy, European integration theory is still an effective tool for understanding many of the dynamics driving European integration. In addition, the recent emergence in Europe of political events such as populism or new nationalism calls for a return to the study of the state and its transformation in multilayered political systems.
The last fifteen years of European integration have revealed a fragile European Union. Due to the crises that have affected the EU on several fronts, most recently the Covid-19 pandemic, the Union has come to terms with the precariousness of the European project. In particular after Brexit, European integration has lost its teleological implication, losing the conviction of a predetermined progress. Therefore, there is the growing awareness that the lack of political will to pursue unity in Europe might jeopardise the very existence of the EU. This leads to the question of what ultimately guarantees unity in the Union or, vice versa, what is the real cause of its disintegration. The modern popular discourse in favour of European integration largely considers intergovernmentalism in the EU as the main cause of its disintegration. By refuting this argument, the aim of this work is to demonstrate that intergovernmentalism is not, per se, a cause of European disintegration. On the contrary, quite paradoxically, the intergovernmental method represents today the only catalyst for possible EU progress.
Autorenporträt
Matteo Scotto is director of the research and project department at Villa Vigoni, the German-Italian Centre for the European Dialogue based in Italy. After previous studies in foreign languages, international relations and European studies in Turin, Venice, Bamberg, New York and Bonn, he completed a PhD in Politi- cal Science at the University of Bonn. From 2013 to 2016 he worked for the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in Bonn and then joined Villa Vigoni in 2016.
Herstellerkennzeichnung:
Nova MD GmbH
Raiffeisenstr. 4
83377 Vachendorf
DE
E-Mail: info@novamd.de
