It may appear paradoxical, but while at the center of the political debate for the election of the European Parliament rages the clash over budget constraints, the ECB and the Euro, the vast majority of citizens of the member countries believe that the EU is, together with National states, the body best equipped to deal with the effects of the international economic and financial crisis and are in favor of the Euro; this was revealed by the Eurobarometer demographic survey at the end of last year. At the same time, however, this same survey highlights a growing distrust in the ability of the European institutions to develop and implement the measures necessary to respond to the needs and expectations induced by the economic and social crisis which, to varying degrees, is gripping the member countries.
This lack of credibility arises from the contradiction that has progressively deepened between the political and economic reasons for the project of European unification. As integration proceeded, the need for a common economic policy grew and therefore for the conferral of new portions of sovereignty to the European institutions and for their greater democratic legitimacy: a dilemma that has become increasingly dramatic with the international economic crisis .
While globalization and the redistribution of economic and financial power with the entry of new global industrial powers such as China and India have shifted the axis of decision-making power beyond national borders, the weakness of the European institutions it has prompted part of the ruling classes of the member states to loosen or question common bonds and even the Euro which constitutes the keystone of the EU's economic framework.
On the other hand, another part of the ruling classes, led by Germany, has used these bonds and the defense of the Euro to safeguard their national interests. Precisely when it would have been necessary to raise the rate of supranationality through common policies to stimulate investment and employment, an objective convergence has therefore occurred between contrasting strategies in the name of the national interest. The institution of the Euro was the extreme limit that could be reached through the strategy of the expansion of economic integration as a driving force for political unity.
From that point on, a reversal of priorities took place: the political governance of economic and financial processes appeared as the main tool for managing the economy. In this respect, some progress has been made, both from an institutional point of view and in the democratization of decision-making processes, but today it is clear to everyone that this is not enough: placing constraints, such as the fiscal compact and other precautionary measures on fiscal policies and budgetary, entails a restriction of the sovereignty of the member states, but does not transfer government powers to the European institutions and does not allow decisions on the procurement and transfer of common resources to pursue the agreed economic and social objectives.
Faced with recessive policies such as those adopted by most of the European ruling classes, with the dramatic social consequences and the profound imbalances between the member states that resulted from them, the lack of European institutions capable of elaborating supranational policies which are not limited to economic reactions, but address the structural problems of the crisis in its internal and external aspects of the Union. The attack on the Euro is, therefore, an attack on the EU and a fatal blow to its very existence and to the project of political unity of Europe.
The demagogic political movements calling for an exit from the Euro (which, however, remain a minority) cultivate the illusion that a return to national states would allow the recovery of monetary sovereignty, the control of capital flows, the blocking of the circulation of labor and immigration. In reality, beyond the catastrophic effects that leaving the Euro would entail, the resulting consequence would be that of ending up at the mercy of the transnational financial power, of the great industrial powers and of the multinationals (legal and illegal) lacking economic defense systems , political and military. It is hard to believe that this prospect will appeal to the majority of European citizens.
The ruling classes responsible for European countries, starting with Italy which would suffer the worst effects, must respond to the distrust that is spreading with a leap forward: politics must take over the economy; we need, not less, but more supranationality and, therefore, more democracy. The problem is not the easing of some formal constraints, which, even if discretionary, is the sign of a common guarantee, but their absorption in a broader political plan which implies strategies of growth and development, based on the rehabilitation of the structures economic and social conditions of each member country as a condition for taking advantage of common resources.
However, it is necessary to overcome what Moises Naim, in his beautiful book, calls "vetocracy", that is, the power of interdiction which prevents governance. In a Europe of 28 states, the disparity of development, social, political and cultural levels and different geopolitical conditions, vetocracy constitutes an impervious obstacle. Therefore, not only gradual unification processes are needed, but also degrees of political integration with variable geometry; in this sense, the proposal, contained in an article by Antonio Armellini in the Corriere della Sera, to make the Euro the driving force behind the acceleration of the unitary project by constituting a Council of Ministers of the Euro accompanied by a parliamentary instrument such as that imagined by the "Eiffel Group".
In this way, within the framework of a shared design, which would be developed at different times and in different ways, the countries that wish to do so would be allowed to grow the unitary institutional architecture in a new reticular supranational form. If these issues will be addressed by the new European Parliament perhaps these elections could constitute a watershed in the history of the EU.
