The document "Europe differently - the need to rebuild Europe"is the fruit of consultation with AEPL members over a period of almost two years. In it, they express their conceptions of the future of a European Union capable of meeting the challenges of today's world while respecting their own values.

 

CONTENTS

1) - The facts

2) - Rebuilding Europe: principles and values

            2-a) Solidarity, democracy and transparency

            2-b) A clearer project

            2-c) A shared European identity

            2-d) European sovereignty

3) - Means of action

            3-a) A «hard core»?

                        - Groups of volunteer states                      

                        - The euro zone as the first circle

                        - The end of unanimous voting

            3-b) A budget to meet the challenges

                        - A budget for the euro zone

                        - Better-adapted programming

                        - New resources

            3-c) The right institutions

                        - The European Parliament

                        - The European Council

                        - The European Commission

4) - Community policies to be developed

            4-a) Common policies

            4-b) A genuine economic policy

            4-c) European defence

            4-d) From enlargement to the reunification of Europe

            4-e) A European response to migratory crises

            4-f) A language policy

            4-g) Education for European citizenship

            4-h) A community of values and individual freedoms

5) - Conclusion: The European dream

 

"EUROPE DIFFERENTLY

ON THE NEED TO REBUILD EUROPE

Preamble

The European Association of Free Thought (AEPL) aims to promote the European project, respect for the fundamental rights of citizens and the separation of religions and the State. It brings together in a European network covering more than twenty countries SS and FF motivated by European integration and sharing humanist values and principles of peace and progress.

The document "Europe differently - the need to rebuild Europe"is the fruit of almost two years of consultation with AEPL members. In it, they express their conceptions of the future of a European Union capable of meeting the challenges of today's world while respecting their own values. This text is a summary of the responses received to date. It covers the main issues raised by our members and presents a coherent whole.

Above all, this document is intended to be the fruit of reflection by grassroots citizens. In this sense, it is a project built from the bottom up and not the other way round, thus fulfilling the wish of European leaders, who frequently declare that they are listening to citizens.

Introduction

Like many European citizens and politicians, the members of the European Association for Free Thought are concerned that the European project may be under threat, or even fail. Whilst firmly supporting the principle of European integration, we note that the EU, as it currently operates, is no longer able to address the concerns of the many citizens facing the upheavals of the modern world. These citizens feel that Europe is indifferent or powerless. Parties founded on opposition to Europe are becoming firmly established in the political landscape of many Member States. If we are to prevent the EU from failing, it is imperative that we give it new impetus, as the status quo will ultimately lead to disaster.

That is why we wish to put forward a vision of a «different kind of Europe» capable of rekindling enthusiasm.

After a quick reportWe will be reiterating the need for a new foundation and a strong reaffirmation of our values.  principles and values which, in our view, must form the basis of this new European Union.

We will then define the means of action to be implemented. These resources may concern the decision-making processes or the different levels of integration desired by the Member States. The scope for action of a reformed Union is closely conditioned by the level and nature of the budgetary resources allocated to it. This issue will also be addressed. Finally, we will address the question of European governance and therefore the organisation of the Community institutions.

Some of today's major challenges are on such a scale that they are beyond the scope of any single state and call for joint responses on a European scale. Several examples of policies of community interest will be presented. We will look successively at the economy, defence, the response to migratory crises, enlargement policies, the possibility of a language policy and education for European citizenship.

To conclude, a final section will be devoted to what could be the european dream for a movement like ours, committed to the values of solidarity, humanism and progress.

1) - The facts

Our members note that the context in which European integration began – that of the Cold War and the boom in catch-up economies in the wake of the Second World War – has changed radically. The globalisation of trade, the financialisation and deregulation of the economy, the digital and robotic revolution, the explosion in inequality, the rise of religious intolerance, the wars against international terrorist organisations (Daesh and others), the alarming consequences of human activity on the environment and climate, and the depletion of non-renewable raw material reserves now constitute a context of instability that is a source of anxiety for many European citizens.

On the other hand, Europe has never before been hit by so many major crises at the same time:

• market uncertainties since the systemic global economic and financial crisis of 2008
• specific eurozone crisis
• political crisis in Western democracies (success of populism)
• crises within the EU (unprecedented fractures: North-South, East-West, old-new, regional separatism, Brexit)
• geopolitical instability in neighbouring regions, crises and armed conflicts on the European Union’s external borders (Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, the Middle East, etc.)
• a crisis of confidence with the traditional American ally
• major refugee and migrant crisis.

The lack of prospects for short-term solutions to all these issues, coupled with the loss of bearings brought about by globalisation, is fuelling fears that are leading large sections of our populations to turn in on themselves and cling to familiar historical reference points. In Europe: the model of the sovereign nation-state, with the risk of nationalist excesses; religions, with the risk of intolerance; and supposed identities, with the risk of rejecting others and turning in on oneself. All these risks of regression directly threaten the very foundations of the European project.

2) - Rebuilding Europe: principles and values

2-a) Solidarity, democracy and transparency

To address these concerns and this significant loss of support for the European project, we must therefore reimagine a Europe that is at once: more democratic, more protective, more united, more transparent, more effective and more understandable.

Respect for European values, including individual freedoms, which are now enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[1], requires that the reform project remain, above all, faithful to the principles of human dignity, freedom, equal rights, solidarity and freedom of thought. This involves a reaffirmation of the values of democracy and human rights[2].

Refounding will in some cases mean profound changes, in others improvements. In particular, this Europe will have to free itself from the excessive postulates of neo-liberalism, which have been so damaging. Stimulating competition will lead the European project to its demise if we forget along the way the necessary solidarity that must unite both States and peoples.

2-b) A clearer project

These principles and values should be able to commit all the States involved in the project to relaunch the European Union.  These principles could be set out in a short text that could have constitutional status. This text would define the the Union’s objectives and in particular the objective of creating a transnational entity through the agreed transfer of sovereignty, a text to be ratified, if necessary, after consultation of the citizens of the signatory states. The absence of a project clearly expressed at the outset by the Member States is a major handicap for the EU, fostering doubt and encouraging euroscepticism.

A balanced institutional system recognises rights but also imposes duties. Any failure by a Member State to comply with common rules or democratic values should be subject to sanctions that are actually enforced. To uphold the principles of the rule of law, the provisions of Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon on the Union’s values must be upheld[3]. However, it would be advisable (a) to supplement the application of Article 7 (which provides that a Member State failing to comply with these provisions may lose its voting rights in the Council) with an article providing for the withholding of certain funds and financial assistance in the event of a breach of Article 2, b) to replace the unanimity rule with that of qualified majority voting.[4]

2-c) A shared European identity

What brings us together as Europeans is more important than what divides us. European citizenship now exists in law. But fully exercising that citizenship requires forging a European identity alongside all the others, one that translates into a sense of belonging, with its rights and duties.

One of the essential conditions for spreading this sense of belonging is a better understanding of what Europe is. Getting to know it better means becoming aware of the eminent part played by the construction of Europe in recent decades in extending the freedoms, rights and advantages we enjoy today. It also means realising that all Europeans share a common history and heritage.

The full exercise of citizenship also depends on information about the institutional workings of Europe, on the one hand, and its Member States, on the other. Today, these issues are mainly covered by national media, often in the «World» section, «Foreign» or «International». Well-informed coverage of European current affairs, supported by public-facing communication from the institutions, should have its own dedicated space, symbolising not something foreign but a shared space between Member States within the same Union.  The role of media organisations developing an attractive offering (following the example of the successful Franco-German television channel Arte) would enable more people to develop an understanding of European culture and to cultivate a sense of pride in being European.

To achieve this, we must make the symbols of Europe more widespread and visible: the flag, the anthem, the motto «United in diversity» and Europe Day on 9 May, commemorating Robert Schuman’s founding speech – a date that should be marked across Europe with symbolic events.

2-d) European sovereignty

In a largely globalised and interconnected world, we know that policies dealing with global issues can only be fully effective if they are dealt with at Community level. It will therefore be necessary to transfer certain exclusive powers from the Member States to the Community level. These transfers will have to be transparent and freely consented to by a majority of the Member States who decide to do so. A redefinition of competences will naturally be necessary in order to have the means to have, for example, a common defence associated with a common foreign policy.

Whilst the power to safeguard the four freedoms within the European Union (the free movement of citizens, goods, services and capital) must be reserved for the European institutions, we must nevertheless remain vigilant regarding the preservation of the powers devolved to the Member States. This is why the issue of subsidiarity[5] is fundamental and deserves to be re-examined. The main criticism is that this principle of subsidiarity, enshrined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and as it operates in practice, has had the effect of absolving the intermediate levels of decision-making (national, regional, etc.) of any real European commitment. It is all too easy to wrongly accuse "Brussels" of dictating its rules to the Member States. If subsidiarity is to be fully embraced by all those involved in political action, it must correspond to a proposal to delegate powers to the European level that comes freely from the local level (from the bottom up) and not be imposed from the top.

In areas deemed to be of mixed competence (EU/States or EU/regions) by the European Court of Justice, institutional mechanisms involving national parliaments in decision-making could nevertheless be preserved. However, if federalist tendencies were to prevail, the notion of mixed competence would surely disappear.

In a context of global crises and threats, European citizens will be better protected by sovereignty on a European scale than they will be by national sovereignty. This is one of the major challenges of the necessary rebuilding of a different Europe.

3) - Means of action

3-a) A «hard core»?

The original plan was for the Member States to move forward together towards an "ever closer union". But the ups and downs of history, national votes and successive waves of enlargement to include states with varying motivations for integration have meant that the reality is one of cooperation and integration à la carte. Not all states have signed up to all the union programmes. There are already de facto "circles" with different perimeters (euro zone, Schengen area, Customs Union, European Economic Area, Police and Judicial Cooperation Area, etc.) which do not overlap with the perimeter formed by the 28 (27) EU Member States.

- Voluntary groups of states. It is therefore the idea of a «core group» or a Europe of varying configurations that many see as the most promising way of breathing new life into the Union. A group of willing Member States[6] It can thus strengthen its level of integration, but only on condition that the others cannot block it. These countries, convinced that the European level is not a constraint but the very condition of their sovereignty, could move towards greater federalism, whilst the others would join them at their own pace and if they so wish. This must be achieved without the other Member States feeling left behind, as the existing body of EU law would remain in force for them.

Achieving this outcome marks a leap towards federalism, even though the EU is not a federal state in the making in the traditional sense. However, it should be noted that the EU already possesses a number of key attributes, such as the European Central Bank (ECB), the euro, Schengen, the Banking Union, the European Stability Mechanism, the European Court of Auditors, border guards and coastguards, etc. As for the approach of moving straight to a text with constitutional status, it has little chance of success in the short or medium term, given recent experiences (the failure of the 2005 Constitutional Treaty), unless the Treaties are amended.

- The eurozone as the first circle. Many believe that the eurozone, which is already highly integrated through its single currency, could form one of the first «core groups». To achieve this, it would need its own budget, co-ordination of economic and monetary policies, as well as procedures for financial solidarity and tax harmonisation, under the authority of a minister responsible for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). This would, in particular, help to address its structural shortcomings, improve its effectiveness and strengthen its resilience to crises. A eurozone parliament could be established, comprising Members of the European Parliament from the countries forming this «inner circle».

- The end of the unanimous vote. With this in mind, and to prevent deadlock caused by minority groups, it is essential that those Member States which are willing – in the interests of greater efficiency – to adhere to more stringent rules should decide to further extend the scope of qualified majority voting, thereby putting an end to the paralysing principle of unanimity. It is, in fact, inefficient to have to negotiate, as we do today, at the cost of half-baked compromises that include exceptions simply to achieve a facade of unanimity. And when it comes to important matters of primary European Union law (a new treaty or an amendment to an existing treaty), a text should be able to be adopted if four-fifths of the Member States have approved it, whether through parliamentary approval or a referendum.

3-b) A budget that meets the challenges.

This is a key point: in order to implement these policies, the EU must have an adequate budget at its disposal. The current budget is woefully inadequate (1 % of GDP, compared with the US federal budget, which is in the region of 24 %) and is too heavily reliant on Member States’ contributions, which are constantly called into question following protracted and frustrating negotiations. The budget must be significantly increased (initially to at least 5% to 10% of the EU’s GDP) to ensure the credibility and visibility of the EU’s actions.

- A budget for the euro zone. Today, States outside the eurozone have the same power to take decisions on budgetary matters as States belonging to the eurozone. It would be logical for there to be one budget for the eurozone and another for all the Member States. The eurozone budget should pursue several objectives:

• provide incentives for Member States to carry out structural reforms
• financing investment in public goods
• ensure a form of solidarity in the event of an asymmetric shock
• give priority to policies with a social dimension
• act as a counter-cyclical instrument in the event of a severe recession in the eurozone.

- Better-adapted programming. The multi-annual planning of budget expenditure - which currently covers a seven-year period - should also be brought more into line with the five-year mandate of the Commission and the European Parliament. Greater flexibility between categories of expenditure and between years of programming would also be desirable and would make it possible to deal with new priorities imposed by current events, such as the management of migratory flows and the protection of external borders.

- New resources. In addition to, or as a replacement for, the current resources linked to VAT and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Member States, this budget will necessarily have to be bolstered by own resources. These could, for example, come from a small percentage of total intra-Community VAT, a percentage of corporation tax, or the recovery of taxes from digital giants engaging in tax avoidance, such as the GAFAT[7], certain customs duties at the EU’s borders (which would make it possible to combat dumping practices effectively or to prioritise trade with countries that are the most socially and environmentally responsible), a European carbon tax to steer the economy towards reduced use of fossil fuels, a financial transaction tax applied equally across all EU Member States, or even a tax on plastics.

-Financing transfers and transparency. We must also seize the opportunity presented by Brexit to promote greater solidarity between rich and less wealthy countries and put an end to the obsession with net balances that give rise to offsetting. With this new EU budget, there will also be a duty to explain and communicate in order to strengthen the link with European taxpayers, who must be able to understand their contribution and monitor, in a fully transparent manner, the use of these funds and the effectiveness of their deployment. Finally, to ensure consent to taxation – which is essential to the democratic process – there is a need to further improve the transparent oversight of the use of European funds and the quality of the results achieved under the supervision of the European Court of Auditors.

At the same time, it might be wise to grant the ECB an additional remit by entrusting it with the task of tackling unemployment, as is the case with the US Federal Reserve, whilst deepening cooperation with the European Investment Bank, as with the Juncker plans, which enable significant leverage to be applied to funds from the EU budget.

In short, this new Community budget, finally equal to the challenges, would make it possible to support, extend and increase the resources for a revival of the European economy, while maintaining strict control and freeing ourselves from the dogma of budgetary austerity.

3-c) The new European governance: appropriate institutions

To apply these policies, the European Union needs institutions that are efficient, democratic and understandable to its citizens. A few simple rules can be laid down as a preamble:

When you're part of a club, you accept all the rules, not just those that favour you. A state cannot exempt itself from those it does not like, as is currently the case on a number of issues, the most blatant being the Euro and social policy.

It will be necessary to clarify the European institutional triangle, which has become increasingly complex through successive treaties – often as a result of horse-trading between Member States – and which currently lacks the coherence required to govern effectively and democratically. Since new common policies will need to be introduced, we must also move towards a federalisation of the institutions, the only form of governance capable of fostering the emergence of a genuine European political society.

This is also why we need to reduce intergovernmental management as much as possible and move towards greater federalism in vital areas (see chapter 4). Only a reform of the institutions will enable the efficiency thus achieved to go hand in hand with all the guarantees of a more democratic system.

We need to revisit the separation of powers, principally between the legislative and executive branches, with the judiciary currently regulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The legislature should be based on a classic bicameral system (a chamber of citizens and a chamber of states) with redefined roles and powers for each chamber:

- The European Parliament : It is the democratic cornerstone of the EU. The European Parliament, as the citizens’ chamber, should see its powers expanded, but above all it should be reorganised in terms of its composition and functioning so that it is more representative of the people and less of national party structures.

It seems essential that voters should be able to vote for European parties and not, as at present, for purely national parties. Each party will have a European programme and its own vision of the future of Europe, which will enable citizens to make a clear decision on European political issues. This vote should take place symbolically at the same time in all the countries concerned.

The European Parliament should legitimately have a role of parliamentary initiative. The powers it will have to exercise include budgetary and fiscal power over the Union's resources, and control of the executive over its expenditure and the implementation of its actions. As at present, it will have the power of censure and the power of confidence. It will have the power to appoint the President of the Commission and each of the Commissioners.

The European Parliament should be made one of the two sources of the EU's legislative programme, which means reviewing the current monopoly held by the European Commission in this area. As part of its extended powers, the European Parliament should also be able to give an upstream opinion on mandates to negotiate international agreements, particularly trade agreements, which are currently given to the Commission alone.

- The European Council The Council should eventually become the second chamber, that of the States. It could also be organised into sectoral councils, as is currently the case with the Councils of Ministers. As the Senate, it will have to co-decide with the Parliament, which implies defining a system of mediation in the event of disagreement.

In this Senate, all the States could have the same number of representatives, as is the case in the American federal system. This is one of the conditions for more complete integration. Votes would be taken by simple majority to avoid paralysis of decisions following the right of veto. However, it must lose its exclusive role as the driving force behind European policy.

- The European Commission : It represents the executive power. It must act on the basis of a general legislative programme adopted by both Houses. It must be formed from political majorities and have the support of the legislative bodies to which it will be fully accountable. In accordance with the conventions of parliamentary democracies, the head of the executive will be the leader of the party or coalition holding a majority in Parliament.

Other options involve electing the President of the Commission by direct universal suffrage to further strengthen their legitimacy. They would then represent the choice of the majority of citizens. In all cases, they must, together with their government, implement the policies for which they were elected. They are accountable to Parliament for their policies.

As «head of government», the President of the Commission must be able to choose his or her own Commissioners, who would then no longer be imposed by the Member States. He will be able to select them on the basis of their competence, political clout, commitment to Europe and integrity, whilst ensuring gender equality and a balance between their countries of origin. The College of Commissioners must be reduced in size to ensure greater efficiency and coherence: the current 28 (soon to be 27) Commissioners will be replaced by a smaller number of Vice-Presidents with expanded powers, overseeing «ministries» that will enable high-calibre political staff from across the EU to be brought into positions of responsibility.

The aim is to transform the Commission into a more political, more democratic and more effective institution, one that is no longer dependent on the backroom deals at the top that are customary amongst the 28 (27) Member States. This will lead to a Europe that operates according to a simpler system, with better-defined and balanced powers – a system that has proved its worth in most European democracies – and whose powers and responsibilities will be well known to all citizens.

4) - Community policies to be developed

4-a) New common policies

To restore citizens’ confidence, the EU will need to be able to pursue, alongside the sovereign policies that have already been transferred to the Community level, a number of policies whose results can be attributed to it in a fully transparent manner. European citizens must be able to clearly link Europe to a tangible improvement in their living conditions.

This is the case in areas where a single State cannot reasonably hope to achieve satisfactory results. Only Community action can mobilise sufficiently powerful resources to be truly effective. To move towards ever closer union between Member States, we can draw up a list of areas of convergence where the Community level is already or would be the most relevant.

The priorities identified relate to strengthening federal powers in the areas of economic, fiscal and budgetary policy; the environment and energy; social policy; defence and foreign policy, policies for the coordination of policing, intelligence and the judiciary, and coordination and cooperation on asylum and immigration matters. A non-exhaustive list, not ranked in order of priority, is set out below:

Social and environmental

• Stimulus policies and the protection of European social models
• Policy to combat global warming
• Energy security policy
• Environmental protection
• Quality agricultural production policy

Defence and security

• The fight against terrorism
• Fighting international crime
• Common defence policy
• Intelligence policy and cyber protection
• Civil Emergency Fund for Disasters
• Policy on surveillance at the EU’s external borders

Migration and cooperation

• Responses to migration crises
• Cooperation and Development Aid Policy

Economic and commercial policy

• A policy of massive investment in new technologies
• Commercial negotiating power against China, the USA, etc.
• Counterweight to the power of the global digital mega-corporations (GAFAT)
• The fight against tax havens
• Fair intra-European tax policy
• Building resilience to financial crises

As regards justice, following the introduction of the European arrest warrant, Europol should be strengthened, and Eurojust and a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, headed by a European Chief Prosecutor, should be established. The aim is to advance cooperation between the judicial authorities of the Member States in the fight against cross-border crime, including VAT fraud. As a second step, provision should be made for the power to establish European courts.

We therefore need to move towards politicising the European Union in order to provide the means for effective action whose positive effects can be measured by citizens.

4-b) A genuine economic policy

The laudable aim of organising free and undistorted competition internally[8]cannot take the place of a single principle in a Europe that wants to maintain its position and influence on the world stage. Vigilant monitoring of internal economic competition, which prevents major European companies from holding a monopoly position, must not result in their being deprived of any chance of competing with the global giants.

Envisioning Europe in a different way requires us to identify the measures needed to foster the development of European businesses, so as to make them competitive in the globalised economy. This requires strong impetus from the institutions across various strategic areas: research and development, investment, support for the industrial sector, innovation policy, and support for business incubators (e.g. start-ups), new professions and new production methods.

A significant increase in budgetary resources for incentives, direct funding and leverage effects would enable these objectives to be achieved in a federal spirit of solidarity.

A European economic strategy must pursue the twin objectives of economic and social success. It involves striving for a dynamic and high-performing economy that ensures a fair distribution of returns between investors and employees, with the dual aim of retaining investors and protecting employees.

The Europe of the future must be a policy of consultation, coordination, control, ethics and solidarity in the face of the technologies of the future (digital, neuroscience, biology, transhumanism, artificial intelligence, etc.) that will have a direct impact on our lives and our future. There is no question of erecting illusory customs barriers, but Europe must demand that imported products be ethically produced (no slavery, no child labour, humane conditions of employment in terms of working hours, safety and social protection). If these conditions are not met, then we should be able to apply a taxation mechanism on entry to the EU or refuse entry if necessary. These conditions should be validated by independent bodies (World Trade Organisation, etc.).

Concerning developing countriesThe European economy should also be able to direct investment towards innovative projects. While the principle of a sufficient level of aid to these countries should not be called into question, the process needs to be controlled. And to do this :

– Review evaluation methods to prevent corruption and ensure that the real needs of the population are better taken into account

- Establish closer collaboration and partnership with the countries receiving aid, which are often in the best position to understand their needs because of their local knowledge.

– Update aid programmes in line with changing priorities (climate change, geostrategic interests, the establishment of a genuine foreign policy and diplomacy, of which development aid could be one of the instruments…)

Thus, while being open to the global economy, the EU must be able to exercise a degree of protectionism at its external borders and equip itself with the means for a genuine economic policy that guarantees its values and interests in global competition.

4-c) European defence

The need for a common defence was apparent from the outset of the European Union project. Blocked in 1954 by the refusal of the French Parliament, the idea of a European Community defence is now back on the agenda.

Whilst threats are on the rise, Europe is struggling to resolve its security issues. Since the end of the Cold War, Europeans have been steadily disarming, and member states’ defence spending is very unevenly distributed. Europeans have become accustomed to the security umbrella provided by NATO, which is 75% funded by the United States. But today, the United States has other strategic interests, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. As for the United Kingdom, its withdrawal risks significantly weakening the EU’s military capabilities, even if bilateral agreements with the EU could step in to fill the gap. Europe now finds itself increasingly isolated. A common defence would be an essential component for a European Union that wishes to be more influential on the international stage, because today, the soft power The EU is no longer enough. .

This new situation has rekindled interest in finding pooled resources                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                and autonomous forces capable of ensuring the defence and security of the European Union. This concern for pooling also responds to public demand for greater efficiency in defence spending in Europe, at a time when the resources allocated to public spending are becoming ever smaller. Some have proposed the creation of a very large European defence fund. The idea has even been put forward of transferring almost all defence budgets, including their debt since they joined the eurozone, to a dedicated fund guaranteed by the Member States. Be that as it may, the answers to the financing questions are central to the feasibility of an integrated defence.

But the prerequisite for the development of a doctrine What is undeniably shared is the existence of a Europe that is more united politically, diplomatically, economically and fiscally, but also morally. The defence of Europe by Europeans and for Europeans seems to us to be a necessity, but there are still profound disagreements between Member States depending on their traditional position (neutral, Atlanticist or Europeanist). As with all issues where a vanguard of states should be able to proceed by enhanced cooperation, European defence should form part of the core group. It is conceivable that France, given its experience and current military capabilities, could assume a leadership role within it, closely supported by Germany and soon reinforced by other states sharing the same vision of pooling defence efforts under the guidance of a centralised military headquarters, which already exists in embryonic form within the EU, in Brussels. However, it is also conceivable that a European defence structure could more easily recruit its initial «core group» by bringing together states with smaller populations and a less sovereigntist tradition, such as the Baltic states or the «Benelux» countries.

4-d) From enlargement to the reunification of Europe

The principle of enlargement has been an integral part of the European project from the very beginning. Europe was built on the rejection of nationalism and the transcending of borders, its purpose being to bring the whole continent together around the core of the six founding countries. The reunification of Europe remains the goal of all those who sincerely wish to build an area of peace and prosperity shared by all Europeans.

The Franco-Dutch "no" vote in the 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty was already largely motivated by the ill-prepared arrival in 2004 of 8 new countries from Central and Eastern Europe. This enlargement enabled these countries to really catch up economically. But after the beginnings of democratic normalisation, some of them ended up drifting towards authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism, questioning public freedoms and adopting a purely utilitarian relationship with the Union. Enlargement has been an economic success, but is proving to be a political failure that is undermining the cohesion of the EU.

Is it now necessary to integrate all the countries of the Western Balkans who have requested it[9] ? The problematic enlargement of 2004 shows that, even if they end up meeting the Copenhagen criteria[10], the candidate countries in the Balkans are not ready, nor are the citizens of the Member States, even though the aim is to convince them of the need to rebuild Europe. A transitional solution for these candidate countries could be their participation, with EU support, in a Balkan common market, enabling them first of all to re-establish amongst themselves the necessary bonds of peace, good neighbourliness and trust. It will be no easy task to convince Europeans of the value of such accessions as long as these ties have not been established.

Similarly, it has become essential to reassure the citizens of Europe by definitively abandoning the accession process concerning the Turkey. This accession would be against the wishes of the people of Europe, and we must now have the clarity to recognise this and the courage to draw the consequences.

Europe urgently needs to deepen its integration first, avoiding any uncontrolled enlargement that could result in citizens rejecting the European project itself.

4-e) A European response to migratory crises

The influx of migrants and refugees due to the attractiveness of Europe, a rich and ageing continent, seen as an area of peace and prosperity with a long tradition of welcoming displaced populations, continues to represent a major factor of political destabilisation for the States of the European Union. This crisis has reawakened reflexes of nationalist withdrawal in Europe and encouraged the rise of populist and xenophobic forces that threaten the humanist values of solidarity that are the foundations of European integration. It is an illusion to think that Europe can protect itself with walls. Border wars, climate crises, poor governance, demographic imbalances and the lack of prospects in some of Europe's neighbouring regions will continue to attract people to Europe.

While we must safeguard our legitimate interests, we must also respect our obligations in terms of fundamental rights, in particular the right to asylum arising from international treaties relating to the victims of war, but also those due to displaced and threatened persons. In order to maintain the bond of solidarity that must prevail between Member States, it is imperative that we abandon the intergovernmental management of today's European Council in favour of an intergovernmental approach. community welcome and integration policy migrants and refugees. This policy must be accompanied by European diplomatic action to stabilise and contribute to restoring peace and security in the countries of origin.

As regards the way in which Member States manage the entry of refugees and migrants into the European Union, it has become clear that the Dublin III Regulation is no longer working. It makes no sense to leave the registration, reception and costs of accommodation and integration solely to the countries of entry, which are most often Greece and Italy.

We must therefore establish a European mechanism to register migrants, capable of distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants, which ensures they are received in dignified conditions and is responsible for their fair distribution amongst the countries of the Union. The phasing out of national systems and the creation of a European asylum system are provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Beyond its symbolic role, the establishment of an EU external border between Europe and its neighbouring countries is also necessary, accompanied by the resources to monitor it (strengthening of the FRONTEX agency).

4-f) A language policy

The diversity of languages spoken in Europe is an undeniable fact.  Whilst some may regard it as an obstacle to European integration, this diversity can just as easily prove to be an opportunity for Europe. Many of the world’s major languages of international communication are already spoken in Europe. This is a key asset for Europe in its relations with the wider world.

Not all Europeans are destined to speak the same language one day, be it an adopted language like English, or an artificial language like Esperanto. Many European languages will continue to coexist for a long time to come. To enable dialogue and mutual understanding between Europeans, the spoken word, as well as the received word, will therefore have to be exchanged through languages. This is why it will be necessary for the younger generations, in addition to their mother tongue, to master at least two other European languages including English. This should be the subject of a proactive language policy at European level.

This programme could be bolstered by a wide-ranging teacher exchange scheme, with teachers acting as cultural ambassadors throughout Europe. Beyond secondary education, multilingualism should, once again, be strengthened by promoting and generously funding stays abroad for all young Europeans in other Member States (an «Erasmus for All»…), by reserving university chairs for professors from other countries, by increasing the number of multilingual seminars and conferences, by using translation from one language to another rather than systematically resorting to English, by supporting multilingual journals and books, and by prioritising the screening of films (documentaries, fiction, animation, etc.) in their original versions with subtitles. Indeed, as every language reflects one or more cultures, these measures would foster greater mutual understanding and bring Member States closer together, whilst preserving the diversity of their cultures. Mutual understanding amongst citizens across our European continent would represent a major step towards sharing a sense of common identity, and would strengthen the bonds of solidarity between all European citizens.

4-g) Education for European citizenship

Knowledge of our common European history should be part of a compulsory set of basic notions taught throughout their studies to all young Europeans. This should be taught in such a way as to ensure that diversity is presented without prejudice and without nationalist or religious ulterior motives.

A petition to the European Parliament was filed in 2017 under the title: " Petition in favour of citizenship education for secondary school pupils ». Its aim is to promote the development of a supranational citizenship based on shared rights and duties, rather than on exclusionary notions of identity. A programme designed to help «to combat fanaticism and promote social cohesion in a multicultural and diverse society, such as European society» on the basis of several articles of the European Union’s founding treaties. In practical terms, a secondary school pupil should acquire a basic understanding of the other Member States and their fellow European citizens, as well as an understanding of how the Union’s institutions function and its mechanisms for citizen participation – a necessary foundation for the healthy exercise of democracy.

This petition, which is to be submitted to the Council via the European Commission, is based on a European Parliament resolution which stresses that ". Knowing and understanding the history and shared values of the EU and its Member States is key to mutual understanding, peaceful coexistence, tolerance and solidarity, as is understanding the fundamental principles of the European Union ".

4-h) A community of values and individual freedoms

We need to emphasise what brings us together, i.e. the values of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Art. 2 of the Treaty on European Union.[11] such as human dignity, equality, freedom, solidarity and tolerance, which are necessary to overcome cultural, political, religious, linguistic or ethnic divisions. It is Europe’s humanist values that are best placed to serve as the glue that binds the Europe of the future.

5) - Conclusion: the European dream

The idea behind the dream of a different Europe is also the idea that the challenges are not just economic or institutional, but above all human. Europe must be understood as a human communitywhose diversity is both an asset and a challenge. The promise of peace, freedom and prosperity must benefit everyone, thanks to a common goal of social progress fostered by the European framework. To achieve this, every citizen must be able to feel the benefits of a Europe that protects them by exercising their sovereignty more effectively, and to which they feel closer because it has been able to renew itself, democratise its operations and listen to its citizens.

The Europe of dreams would be :

• a Europe that guarantees freedom: all public freedoms, freedom of thought guaranteed by the strict neutrality of institutions with regard to religious dogma, freedom of expression, freedoms that are currently under attack in several Member States
• a Europe that is concerned with the equality of human beings: equal rights between genders, origins and sexual orientations. Although these rights are formally guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, we know that there is still progress to be made in many Member States.
• a Europe of greater solidarity and humanity, a Europe concerned with the development of countries with which it has long-standing relations and which expect better conditions for cooperation
• a Europe that is more effective in its decision-making than it is today, while at the same time becoming more democratic, more transparent and more comprehensible
• a Europe where the pursuit of happiness, like the pursuit of quality of life, could become a fundamental right of every European citizen.

The European Union must be able to demonstrate that it brings genuine added value. Only in this way will it be able to reverse the decline in support it is currently experiencing, at least in part. This new Europe, which could be proposed to European citizens, should be a Union of nation-states open to the world, with a long-term intellectual and political vision if we are to prevent our societies from closing themselves off from the contemporary world; a vision aimed at rebuilding a distinctly European political, economic and social model that reconciles freedom, solidarity, the values underpinning a common identity, protection and the capacity to exert international influence. Europe will only be able to hold its own in global competition if it remains true to its vision of guaranteeing peace and human progress. Such a Europe, then – fundamentally reimagined compared to the one we know today – would serve as an example from which the world could draw inspiration.

BRUSSELS, 25 March 2018

[1]          The European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights is a directly applicable binding legal instrument, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is (alas!) no more than a UN resolution.

[2]          This essential question of Fundamental Rights will be addressed in a document devoted specifically to the subject, which will be published at a later date.

[3]          Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union: The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society characterised by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.

[4]          A qualified majority must be achieved by at least 55% of the Member States (i.e. a minimum of 16 States) and 65% of the population, or 72% of the States and 65% of the population when the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

[5]          Article 5 of the TEU: The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it and of the objectives assigned to it by this Treaty. In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, take action only if – and to the extent that – the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Community level. The Community’s action shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty.

[6]          At least 9 countries according to the European treaties.

[7]          GAFAT: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter

[8]          Articles 105 and 106 (ex 85 and 86) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

[9]          The Western Balkan countries that are official candidates are Montenegro, Serbia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Albania. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo are potential candidate countries or have applied for membership.

[10]         A country's accession to the European Union is subject to certain criteria defined at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993:

1. The presence of stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
2. A functioning market economy and the ability to cope with market forces and competitive pressure within the EU;
3. The ability to assume the obligations of membership, including the capacity effectively to implement the rules, standards and policies forming the body of EU law (the acquis communautaire) and to embrace the objectives of political, economic and monetary union.

[11]         Article 2 states: «The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society characterised by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.»