Patxi Aldecoa: "The currency is the greatest achievement of the European project and it works precisely because it is federal".

Patxi Aldecoa is a Spanish political scientist and internationalist with a PhD in Political Science and a degree in Economics and Political Science and Administration, and has focused on the study of International Relations and European Integration. He is also noted for his analysis of foreign policy, international cooperation, transformations in diplomacy and integration processes. He spoke to the microphones of the Atalayar programme on Capital Radio to give the keys to the new Conference on the Future of Europe and to analyse the functioning of the EU.

A Conference on the Future of Europe began yesterday in Strasbourg, taking advantage of 9 May, Europe Day, and the aim is to open debates between Europe and its citizens, which will allow the people of Europe to get to know ideas, proposals and initiatives that will shape the future of Europe. 

That is the consequence of the Schuman Declaration, of which we are already celebrating the 71st anniversary. At the same time, it should be understood that the Schuman Declaration stems from the Congress of The Hague in 1948, in which he himself took part as a federalist. At the Hague Congress it was civil society that said we had the war, there was no Europe and we had the war, we have to build it. A few months later, the European movement was created, the international European movement, and in February '49, our Spanish Federal Council of the European Movement, which was created in Paris and whose first president was Madariaga. But the Schuman declaration was the second step, the first was when civil society moved. The federalists who had emerged in the World War, in the trenches, in the concentration camps, moved and raised the need to build Europe and put forward the project. The second step was Schuman on 9 May, presenting the political project, the famous declaration that we consider to be the birth of the European project. Although Schuman merely reflected the commitments that the citizens had made and put forward the political project. Finally, the third step was that Schuman spoke of the need to create the first stage of the European Federation, the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), which in 51 became not only a political commitment, but also a legal commitment. The treaties were signed and the first president of the now supranational authority was Jean Monnet.

It should be emphasised that the institution was created with the aim of avoiding a third world war. The great success of the European Union during these 71 years was to weave the fundamental ties between Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the rest of the European countries after the great tragedy of the Second World War.

The Schuman Declaration clearly states that it is a matter of making war between Europeans unthinkable and structurally impossible. That is why solidarity is needed, in fact, we have to create structures that make it impossible for this to happen, and the first is the ECSC, with the control of coal and steel, which had been partly responsible for the world war. So what we have to do is to control in order to merge our interests and, first of all, to achieve that Franco-German reconciliation. In my opinion, the conference is somewhat similar to The Hague, in the sense that first of all we have to make a political reflection, in that case it was the federalist movements, of professors, lawyers, architects, in short, two hundred members of national parliaments gathered there, including Schuman, but there were also Indalecio Prieto, José Antonio Aguirre and Madariaga, to name but a few Spaniards, who were the ones who later created the European Movement. Now, it is something similar because it is a matter of reflection. José María Gil Robles said the other day that in the face of the war, The Hague arose, and in the face of the pandemic, the need to create Europe, to refound, rebuild and promote the European Union. In this sense, the Conference on the Future of Europe is equivalent to The Hague. At least in terms of the fact that we have to come to an agreement between civil society and institutions to take a further step forward. 

We are going to focus above all on the present, because the Conference is about gathering the impression of the people of Europe today. This re-reading of what Europe is and what it should be in the future is impossible without its citizens, and we must count on their opinion and their impetus.

Of course, as well as that of civil society. The problem is, as you will have seen, that perhaps the composition that has been sought is not the most appropriate.

What about the Conference itself, how does the composition of this body look like?

This agreement, by the way, has not been reported in any of the Spanish media. Hours before the Conference there were difficulties, as you know, the Conference was to be held on 9 May last year, but because of the pandemic it was delayed. But not only because of the pandemic, but also because there were difficulties between the representatives of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. In the end, the Belgian Prime Minister formally convened the conference on 10 March and some of the co-chairs, such as the Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa, formally convened it. Ursula von der Leyen delegated the Croatian vice-president, who was to lead the conference, and there had not been many meetings.  There were to be 108 representatives from the European Parliament, 108 from the national parliaments and 54 from the states, that is to say, two from each state. In my opinion, one of the big problems is the choice of the panels with the representation of civil society and citizens who are chosen at random, because it is very difficult to understand. That is the eternal balance of power that there is always in the European Union, but everyone is a winner-takes-all and everyone wants more representation, there is no doubt about that.

We must not forget that the 21 July agreement of the European Council was an initiative of the Parliament and a proposal by the Commission, an interinstitutional agreement is a first federal step and goes beyond the reconstruction funds.

The light, the reconstruction funds, the new generations fund, the issue of vaccines and the recovery plan go beyond the legal bases provided by the Treaty.

I would not use the case of vaccines as an example, because it has not exactly been exemplary.

I am talking about the fact itself, which is what is important, that the European Union functions as a European Union. 

Another issue is that AstraZeneca has sold out to the highest bidder, who has paid 3 or 4 dollars more per vaccine and what it had reserved for the European Union has been diverted to other countries. But, during the crisis of 2008-2014, the European Union was not the European Union and was and was the precipice, because populism, Euroscepticism, Brexit, left the European Union in a very delicate situation. And now, fortunately, with the pandemic, they have acted as the European Union. Another thing is that they should have tied up those contracts much better.

At least it was accepted that it was the Union that had to do the negotiating. Whether it was done well or badly, there was no legal basis for it either.

It has been done collegially, which was the important thing.

Of course, it would have been completely different. This may have worked well, but the other possibility would have been a real disaster if the Member States had competed with each other by buying vaccines on their own. Furthermore, we sometimes compare it with the United States, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we are not yet a state, much less a structure of intergovernmental federalism, we would say, half and half. In recent years, as you say, when the crisis hit, it was mainly intergovernmental, and there has been a return to intergovernmentalism. Now, suddenly, faced with a need, they have accepted a federal logic. To distribute, according to needs, 210 billion to Italy, 160 billion to Spain, 3 billion to the Netherlands, which has a GDP equivalent to ours, that is federalism.

You just mentioned the United States. Don't you think that Europeans would accept better the formula of a State made up of 50 States, let's say, with a lower level of competences, but forming a united and homogeneous whole?

I believe that Europeans accept the project we have, which we must continue to develop, which is not a union of states, it is a federation. The Federation implies that there is a transfer of sovereign powers, which was already there in the ECSC in 71. Some material areas, an attribution of powers from the States to the institutions, this issue has been developed a lot now and in almost everything this is our model, but it is this model of balance between federalism. The representatives of the Parliament, which is federal, are elected by direct universal suffrage, without any questions. The representatives of the Council are elected by the representatives of the governments of the states, the legislation works in collaboration between them. What is the problem in the last eight years? The problem is that because of the crisis the states have taken on more power than they were entitled to, possibly to get out of the crisis. The difference now is that the institutions have come to an agreement and thought that this should be done in a federal rather than intergovernmental logic and have taken decisions beyond the legal bases they have for doing so. And the common policy will have to be developed subsequently, which will require treaty reforms on many issues, health, migration, and all of them will have to be dealt with at the conference, but above all to give it a new balance between States and Parliament. And it is normal for some states to say that they do not want treaty reform. Nobody likes to lose competences, but this is the political process that is already underway.

However, if some governments, the main governments, had not agreed to that, they are the ones who put in place those who run the institutions. The EU-27 now has a hard core, a locomotive that pulls.

I would go so far as to say that you have to go as far as Poland and Hungary on that issue to make countries happy, touching on issues of human rights and freedoms. But what I am told by those who attend the sectoral councils is that Poland and Hungary do not object because they are very comfortable. The other thing is that on their issue they immediately jump up and down. Brexit has brought about a cohesion between member states that none of us imagined in recent years. This is extremely important, because we believed in the existential crisis that the countries of the East, with the Baltics, were going to come out behind. With the United Kingdom, they were lobbying quite strongly, and as soon as the head of the lobby left, that dissolved.

Can we conclude at this point that Europe has become more cohesive in the UK? 

I think so, clearly, I was with the Czech ambassador yesterday, to cite an example, from a country that we question. He was in no doubt that nobody there would even think of proposing alternatives of a different nature, not even Hungary. In any case, if they carry on like this, they will have to be thrown out, not driven out. I am one of those who think that the European Union is such a good invention, despite the fact that the United Kingdom will be knocking on the door again in a few years' time. And if it doesn't, it's because of their unrealistic pride. Especially with the issue of Scotland and Northern Ireland with the violence of the IRA, etc. The European Union was part of the glue.

In Spain the European movement, taking into account the political environment PP, PSOE and Ciudadanos are working hand in hand.

We always see examples in all the important agreements that have been adopted in the last year and a half. All the Spanish MPs, maybe there has been some abstention, that of VOX, but not even those of Podemos, everyone has voted in favour. Everyone voted with the majority of the 500, that is, with 70% of the House. I always use the example of Borrell and the famous visit to Russia, which may not have gone well. Then one hundred and some Baltic and Eastern MEPs put a motion of censure on him. Then it is voted in Parliament and it has 80 votes in favour and 200-odd against. And the Spaniards are all in favour and it only appears in the newspapers in small print. 

Because positive news is not news, you know.

But there is such news every day, they are voting the same way. An example of this is what the president of the Italian federalists was telling me, not even in Italy does this happen. They are more divided than we are, but apparently it seems the opposite, and here in Spain there is only talk of disagreements, confrontation and tension. We have a complicated internal situation, but it is not publicised that outside we are better off than ever. 

If I were to tell you about the great achievements of what has been this invention, the great European project, for example, the internal market, freedom of movement, people across borders and workers, the single currency, of course, aid to countries that needed support at home, cohesion or foreign policy, which would perhaps be the most questionable, what is the great achievement of the European Union in these years?

For me, the currency, which works precisely because it is federal. Foreign policy, which is a community project, does not work. There is always talk of each country pulling its own interests a little bit. Both fiscal union and foreign policy need to be resolved at the conference. In any case, in foreign policy we are making progress with Borrell's book, which has just been published and explains well what has been attempted in the year and a bit that he has been working on, and there is progress despite the fact that unanimity is needed to take important decisions. A single state can block proposals.

It is a complicated issue to unite a foreign policy opposition, but above all, common defence is even more complicated, and that is even worse. Reinforced majorities must be strengthened.

I think this is the way it has to be for the time being. The model we have is a good one. You will have seen that there is a proposal from the German Social Democrats for a European army, but I don't see that at the moment. One model we are moving towards in terms of defence is that of NATO, the commitment in article 42.7 of the treaty which establishes the obligation of defence by all means in the face of external aggression. The NATO model of the Army of Armies, for the time being, just as in diplomacy, we have a common diplomacy that is different from that of the States above it, in the area of defence we are moving forward little by little, the latest steps have been taken this week through permanent cooperation and it is making progress, but it takes time.

The Americans' demand is that Europeans should be more committed to their defence, i.e. that they should reach 2% of GDP in defence spending. Here we are missing the multilateralism that we did not have with Trump and that we seem to have recovered with Biden. An exclusively European army would be a step backwards. 

In this sense, the Union, Defence, Europe, I believe that these capabilities are 45 projects, including the new fighter plane. And well, there is an enormously important development of capabilities and I believe that step by step technology is very important. And now with the issue of sanctions, for example, which has not been mentioned much in the Spanish media, the new system of the sanctions regime that is taken automatically, in six months we have imposed sanctions on people by the European Union in 34 countries, including China; I think you remember that it was in February when the United States did the same thing 24 hours later. So one of the first times that the initiative was taken.

There have also been sanctions on Russia recently.

Moreover, they are now targeted at individuals.

Are the EU sanctions effective?

I think so, when you freeze the current account of a leader of any kind, they think about it, it does enormous damage. It is a beautiful subject that has not been studied. For my part, I had the opportunity to chair a thesis a few weeks ago at the University of Valencia on these companies whose bosses, their directors, had their assets seized and appealed to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice initially gave them some reason, but now they are looking for a mechanism, because of course, what they were saying was that they did not have the right to defend themselves, the right to effective judicial protection. But of course, you can't take someone's assets if you haven't warned them that you're going to take them away, and they've set up a system that is being effective. What we don't know is whether it will hold up. 

Patxi, tell us about the fact that we could have a Madrid Treaty, for example, just as there is a Maastricht Treaty.

There were several people at this afternoon's conference who said that there is no treaty reform. I believe that, if Macron has made such a strong statement that he wants consequences in a year's time, that is, on 9 May, which will be two weeks before the elections in France, they are going to play hardball. Therefore, I believe that the process of treaty reform will begin, which will be through a European convention, as established in article 48 of the current treaty. Furthermore, this timetable that favours France also suits us, and will probably be in the second half of 2023.