To Integrate, or Not to Integrate?
By Stephen J. Morgan, a Philadelphia-area business writer and frequent contributor to the magazine
Euro-Enthusiasts
and Skeptics
Debate the
European Union’s Future
People with an interest in watching the economic and
political future of Europe unfold had a lot to talk about
this summer, thanks in part to some controversial remarks
by German foreign minister Joschka Fischer and French
President Jacques Chirac.
Among those watching carefully were
Wharton alumni at companies in
Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland,
as well as faculty members in
Philadelphia – all of whom have close
ties to Europe and a deep knowledge of
the long and tortured history of a part of
the world where suspicions abound,
national pride is strong and cooperation
can be hard to come by. Some alumni,
expressing concern about further centralization
of government power, were
troubled by what Fischer and Chirac had
to say, while others found the comments
by the two leaders to be pretty much on
the money. Alumni and faculty alike
were quick to explain that Fischer and
Chirac’s statements could only be fully
understood, especially by non-Europeans,
if you remember something about
the Roman empire and the history of the
nation-state from your school days.
What was it that got things so
stirred up?
In a speech in Berlin in May, Fischer
said he felt it was time for members of
the European Union to forge a stronger
political structure to accompany the
kind of closer economic integration that
has evolved in recent years. It was time,
he suggested, to think about a European
constitution and an elected president.
Little more than a month later,
Chirac spoke to the Bundestag in
Berlin. He echoed Fischer, endorsing
the idea of a constitution. Further, he
broached the idea of a “pioneer group”
of countries – including France and
Germany – that would move quickly
toward economic and political integration.
Other countries that wished to
proceed more cautiously, he said, would
be able to do so – an idea that was
dubbed a “two-speed” approach.
Chirac did say that neither France
nor Germany envisioned forming a
super-state to replace Europe’s nation
states. Still, reaction to his comments
was swift, especially in Britain. Euro-skeptics
– those who generally oppose
relinquishing sovereignty to pan-European
bodies – were aghast, interpreting
Chirac’s comments as evidence that a
Franco-German-led pioneer group
could leave Britain in the dust. Even
some leaders in Germany and France
were none too pleased at the ideas floated
by Fischer and Chirac.
Such ideas had never been so bluntly
stated by high officials. And the question
now facing Europeans is one that
they have been asking, in one form or
another, since the end of World War II:
Where do we go from here? Today,
though, the question has reached a
point of heightened urgency.
|
