Because of the state of the globe today, "greater Europe" is an absolute need. However, a "even tighter union" is hardly the solution - especially considering the other initiatives that Macron has in mind.
The phrase "European sovereignty," which was coined by French President Emmanuel Macron in his address at the Sorbonne in Paris on September 26, 2017, has received such a strong and consistent reaction in Germany to the extent that it has not been found in any other European nation. Throughout the course of the election campaign for the Bundestag, the word was repeatedly spoken and read, most often in the form of the version "sovereign European Union." It was mentioned in the coalition agreement between the parties that support traffic lights many times, as well as in the first government speech that Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave in the Bundestag.
There is some evidence to suggest that the ardent support for Macron's proposal is based on a misunderstanding, or perhaps on German wishful thinking. In Germany, the term "European sovereignty" is frequently associated with the further development of the European Union's union of states into a European federation, even a European federal state. This is something that the coalition agreement of the traffic light expressly commits itself to in response to the urging of European politicians from all three parties. However, the idea of transferring French sovereign powers to a supranational European state is the farthest thing from Emmanuel Macron's thoughts. And he most definitely does not consider the possibility of a successful Europeanization of symbolic big power traits such as France's nuclear deterrent or a permanent place on the United Nations Security Council.
Macron means more independence from the United States and NATO when he primarily uses the term "European sovereignty." This in no way corresponds to the priorities of the Federal Republic of Germany's foreign and security policy, but rather to an interpretation that dates back to Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the Fifth Republic French reason of state. Macron has been criticized for his use of this term. And when the French President calls for further joint borrowing by the EU, which would be for a debt union, this goes against everything that is known about the interests of the federal government and, most importantly, the ambitions of Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner.
Macron highlights, very appropriately, the need of a single European weapons and military strategy. There are, without a doubt, significant areas of agreement between Paris and Berlin, not the least of which is the sector of a unified European armaments and defense policy. If, on the other hand, this kind of intergovernmental "More Europe" is what is intended, there is no need to use the deceptive phrase "European sovereignty."
On the other hand, the concept of "European sovereignty" is fraught with problems that may be traced back to very other, more basic sources. In democracies, there is no such thing as sovereignty that goes beyond the sovereignty of the people. It is through parliaments that the sovereignty of the people is expressed. These parliaments must be the product of elections that are universal, free, secret, direct, and equal. Additionally, they must adhere to the idea that "one person, one vote." On the other hand, this kind of parliament is only present at the national level; it does not exist at the European level. When it comes to elections for the European Parliament, the smaller member states get preferential treatment at the cost of the bigger member states. This is for good cause. To take the most obvious illustration possible, the weight of a Maltese voice is around 10 times that of a German voice. A European Parliament that was formed according to the same election rules would have up to 6,000 members, which would allow for nations like Malta and Luxembourg to also be represented there. A legislature like that couldn't function properly.
As long as the Strasbourg Parliament does not claim the same rights as the parliaments of the Member States, the democratic legitimacy gap that results from uneven elections is acceptable. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to suppose that the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy could be resolved by making it entirely parliamentary. The EU exercises fundamental rights of control and participation; however, this does not mean that the EU is democratically legitimate. Some German members of the European Parliament, in particular, are fooling themselves.
The fact that this is the case may be rationalized using historical evidence. Through extreme nationalism, the German people were able to bring about the downfall of their first nation-state, the German Empire of 1871, within three quarters of a century. The two entities that emerged after the dissolution of the German Reich did not qualify as nation states. A "post-national" consciousness that was oriented towards Europe developed in the "old" Federal Republic over the decades, which many intellectuals, particularly those on the left of the center, regarded as a signature of the epoch held. This was in contrast to the identity that the GDR prescribed for itself, which was an internationalist and "socialist" identity. That was a bad move on your part.
It is quite unlikely that any other member state of the European Community, with the exception of the Federal Republic, could ever conceive about abandoning their own country in favor of "Europe" at some time in the future. Rather, people intentionally held to their own national identification and their own nation-state, and they periodically reminded the Germans that prior to 1945, in their capacity as occupiers, they had questioned the national identity of the peoples of the countries that they had conquered.
In contrast to the "old" Federal Republic and the no longer existing GDR, the reunified Germany is once again a nation-state; nonetheless, it is of the modern, post-classical variety: It participates in the joint exercise of certain of its sovereign rights with other members of the EU and has other rights to common institutions such as the ability to have its monetary policy determined by the European Central Bank (ECB). When seen in this light, the post-national rhetoric of German provenance might be understood to be an example of false awareness. Inaccurate projections about the future of the community go hand in hand with this problem.
The claim that the European Union is a community of values is being called into serious doubt by "illiberal democracies" like Hungary and Poland, which have declared war on normative "essentials" like the independence of the judiciary, which is an essential component of the rule of law. This casts serious doubt on the EU's claim to be a community of values. The European Union's claim that it speaks with one voice to the rest of the world cannot be salvaged if individual countries, like Hungary again, join forces with a country that is an avowed foe of the EU, like Putin's Russia. Therefore, "more Europe" will be difficult to achieve within the confines of the EU's current 27-member structure.
For the same reason, relying on treaty amendments such as those that would be required so that questions of foreign and security policy could be voted on by a qualified majority in the European Council is now an illusion due to the fact that such changes would be necessary. However, since the current condition of the globe makes "more Europe" crucial in this specific area, it is necessary to deepen the common ground of those nations that, for the most part, "pull in the same direction." This is applicable on a worldwide scale, but it also has to be communicated inside the EU. Given the existing circumstances, working toward "ever closer collaboration" rather than "ever closer unity" is the most practical goal to pursue at this point in time.
The involvement of the national parliaments is crucial to all of this, and it should not be overlooked. The tendency of countries to regard "Europe" as an executive domain has been the single most important factor in the growth of the notion of executive authority in Brussels. An improvement was made in this regard as a result of the verdict that the Federal Constitutional Court issued in 2009 regarding the Treaty of Lisbon. This ruling places an emphasis on the national parliaments' responsibilities in regards to integration. The discussions that take place in the Bundestag about European policy serve to guarantee that European concerns gain greater attention from the general population in Germany. Intense and ongoing collaboration between the European committees of the national legislatures that make up the EU member states, as well as a synchronization of the work that these committees do, would be another contribution to "greater Europe."
Without a comprehensive overhaul of the decision-making procedures, it is unimaginable that the European Union would ever expand its membership. This is true for the nations that make up the western part of the Balkan Peninsula as well as the newest aspirants for membership, Ukraine and Moldova. If governments that felt less linked to the political culture of the West than to that of Putin's Russia were to be included in the category of "illiberal democracies," the coherence of the community would be severely stressed to the point where it would be impossible to maintain. Therefore, Macron is entirely correct when he suggests a European Political Community as a preliminary form of participation. This type of membership may even include nations in which it is questionable as to whether or not they will ever achieve the standards for full EU membership.
It's safe to assume that many of the people who talk about "European sovereignty" or a "sovereign European Union" really just want an EU that's more capable of taking action than the one that exists right now. If this is the case, it is unquestionably preferable to use this particular term, which is less grandiose and more straightforward than the deceptive and ambitious term that provokes erroneous associations of "European sovereignty," a concept that, according to Macron, the term's author, has only a metaphorical meaning.
It is not enough that Russia and China are providing the possibility for Europe to strive to strengthen its global political weight via tighter collaboration; this attempt is also vital since Russia and China are providing the opportunity. They are need to do so as well due to the fact that the future of their most powerful friend is shrouded in considerable doubt. The western democracies, both inside and outside of Europe, must already be thinking about what the "worst case" would result for them and their alliances, most notably NATO, because they cannot rule out the possibility of a potentially dangerous outcome in the presidential elections that will take place in the United States in 2024.