There is a fundamental contradiction at the core of the European Union — one created by the pull of supranational processes and that of national interests. In some areas, member states agree to forfeit their sovereignty to supranational institutions. In other areas, the states retain their national prerogatives. Generally, member states have conceded more of their sovereignty on economic issues, allowing for the elimination of internal tariffs and the creation of a common market. On such issues as foreign policy and defense, states have tended to retain their authority.
Integration and Sovereignty
The contradiction was a constant source of tension in the European Economic Community (EEC), and it continues to cause tension in the EEC's successor, the European Union. Every instance in which sovereignty was forfeited was accompanied by lengthy negotiations. In one case in 1965, France temporarily withdrew its representatives from the European Council of Ministers in protest of a proposal to increase the supranational power of the European Commission.
Though it required compromises from its members, the European project has for 60 years largely delivered on its promise to bring economic prosperity to the Continent. But the current financial crisis has threatened that prosperity. That threat has exacerbated some tensions inherent in the European experiment while introducing new ones.
In Europe there is a constant tension between supranational institutions and sovereign states. Supranational institutions, particularly the European Commission, were designed to foster the integration process. Unsurprisingly, states often resist integration, as evidenced by the recent dispute over the Schengen Agreement. At the core of the discussion was a dispute over who has the power to decide to temporarily re-establish border controls. Member states prevailed, and the European parliament responded by accusing member states of undermining the integration process.
There is also permanent tension among member states over the direction of the European project. In December 2011, the 27 members of the European Union failed to reach a consensus over the fiscal compact treaty. The United Kingdom and the Czech Republic refused to sign the agreement, which then had to be designated as an intergovernmental treaty — a mechanism that allows some members of the bloc to integrate more quickly than others. Not only did this show the increased difficulty of reaching consensus within the European Union, it also reinforced concerns that Brussels has prioritized the eurozone ahead of the rest of the bloc, thus accelerating the development of a "two-speed" Europe.
Even when nations agree on long-term goals, they do not always agree on the means by which to achieve them. For example, while most European countries favor increasing economic and political unity, they have different ideas about what that increased unity should entail. Periphery countries such as Spain and Italy favor a European Union that operates as a fiscal transfer system and has no substantial control over domestic economic policies. Northern countries, led by Germany and comprising the Netherlands and Finland, want to impose strict economic controls to condition the fiscal behavior of their southern neighbors.
Democratic Accountability
In addition to these disputes, countries are increasingly concerned about the democratic legitimacy of the European project. States are not monolithic entities, and discussions within a government or between the ruling party and its parliamentary opposition are common. However, in recent days there has been increased concern over the effect European integration has on the separation of powers and the democratic accountability of governments.
On June 21, the German Constitutional Court asked the German president to delay ratification of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Fiscal Compact treaty. According to the court, both issues were pushed through parliament too quickly and without the necessary debate. A week earlier, the court ruled that the German parliament should have a greater say in decisions related to the bailout mechanisms.
While these rulings will not halt the approval of the ESM and the fiscal compact, they are politically significant. The Constitutional Court believes that Germany is making hasty decisions on core issues without giving parliament a chance to weigh in. According to the court, greater debate is called for when making decisions in such key areas as the transference of sovereignty and funds and the creation of new bailout mechanisms.
On June 17, French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said national parliaments should provide more democratic control if Europe adopts more integrated economic governance. According to Ayrault, the European parliament alone does not sufficiently provide such control.
In another instance of increased concern, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti on June 22 said that if current negotiations over the European crisis fail, the Italian parliament could "turn against the European Union." Domestic concerns prompted Monti's statement — his government is having difficulty passing economic reforms. However, his message was clear: Even Italy, historically a supporter of European integration, can turn against Europe if the crisis is not resolved.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Germany would eventually have to call for a referendum on the future of the European Union. In an interview with German media, he said it was acceptable to transfer more rights to Brussels, but the German people would have to make that decision. While German Chancellor Angela Merkel distanced herself from the idea, other German politicians backed Schaeuble.
The European Union faces overlapping challenges. It must respond to the financial crisis while respecting the sovereignty of member states. This requires the European Union to make decisions rapidly, yet those decisions must take into consideration the will of the people in its member states.
In this context, the friction between national parliaments and supranational institutions — ultimately the result of the European Union's own inconsistencies — will increase, as will popular demand for a more democratic Europe. National parliaments will demand a greater say in European affairs, and hostility against European bureaucrats will grow.
