Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade is this young man (31) who has been asked to prepare the strategy of LREM (En Marche) for the European vote. His issue is not to work on a program but on a strategy to let emerge after the election a coalition in the European Parliament to support the re-foundation of Europe as designed by Macron.
What should he do? What should he propose?
In my very personal opinion he should initiate, on a truly decentralized way, the emergence of a pan-European democratic movement. This movement could be joined either by existing political parties and movements or directly by single individuals.
Even if this is not the time to enter into the definition of a program, this movement should nevertheless be structured on 2-3 principles on which Europeans would want to rally.
First, this movement should clearly stand for our true European humanist values, and defend this unique balance between freedom, rule of law and social empathy that we like to follow in Europe. However the daily defense of these values should hopefully not belong to the core of the agenda of this movement, this task being theoretically covered by the existing local parties. The new movement could intervene on new themes where we see the existing parties less at ease, and where we quickly need a European coordination, for the defense of these same values in the challenging context of the current birth of the digital society for instance.
But the true agenda of this movement should be dedicated to the coalition of all the willing forces of the continent for the re-foundation of Europe as defined by Emmanuel Macron in his speech of La Sorbonne, and as complemented by Bruno Lemaire in his speech on the reform of the Eurozone pronounced in Berlin on Nov 8th, 2017.
In the face of climate change, migration flows, new geo-political threats, or in the face of challenging realities of a new digital society we do not have much time for brilliant and endless ideological debates about Europe. People just need efficient European solutions to address their common problems. Now. The time for empty words should be over. This movement should in fact recognize that its main enemy is this too well understandable skepticism generated by too many layers of glorious European projects, which delivered so little except too much communication.
This is why the radical change of the European governance should be at the top of the priorities of this movement. It would fail, and even does not need to be created, if it would not have the courage and the ambition to tackle the core of the European weaknesses. For almost 30 years Europe has been dying of its intergovernmental governance. There will be no European solution, in any field, if there is no efficient European governance. We do not need to launch any new project if this is just to add to the disasters of a Lisbon strategy or a Copenhagen conference, or to the lukewarm but ineffective intentions that we had during the European crisis, and which (at the important exception of the ECB policy), did not fix any point but preferred to let the poorest of us pay instead of building effective European solutions to the crisis.
We need to go back to the supranational governance of Monnet, but without falling into the traps of a governance which was already rejected once, because not being democratic enough. We have to take the efficiency of the European community approach, since only a supranational authority is really able to put the common objective as the true priority, and thus reach it, for the benefit of all the parties, but we should add to it a democratic legitimacy through a true democratic origin and democratic control of this supranational authority.
Then we should certainly end with a European architecture made of many circles, each circle being a European project to work on a concrete European solution to a common problem. Each country would be free to join any particular circle, the various circles would be opened to all, and a democratic supranational authority would run each of them. And each supranational authority would report to the Commission and be controlled by a European Parliament reduced to the representatives of the member states involved in the said circle. And we do not need much institutional change to achieve this.
Europe 3.0. could be a good name for a movement defending such an approach. After the non-democratic European community and the paralysis of the intergovernmental Europe, the European construction needs a new chapter. This will not be a super visionary chapter, we do not speak here about federalism or about the United States of Europe, we speak about concrete solutions articulated by the countries willing to implement them, and following an efficient and democratic supranational governance. But this is already a lot. This is already enough to let Europe succeed and convince the Europeans of the European added-value.
This movement could not and should not be En Marche Europe or l’Europe en Marche. It can be inspired by the example of En Marche in France, but it can be neither a copy nor a projection of En Marche in Europe. It would run the risk of being seen as product of the French arrogance and imperialism in a Europe where prejudices against France do exist. The Europeans are keen to admit that they need France to dare to dream about accessing a European sovereignty and wake up our European Sleeping Beauty to address their concrete problems. But Europe would immediately coalesce against the arrogance of a new Sun King or other Napoleon. Then our genial inspirer of this great pan-European movement to come should find the delicate equilibrium between charisma, leadership and modesty.
Europe 3.0 has to be from the very beginning a true local, decentralized, bottom-up European movement, gaining a real impact through a pan-European institutionalization. Europe 3.0 needs also to follow a much more democratic governance than the current one of LREM, which is often and rightly so criticized in Europe on this point…
Such a movement can, in my opinion, be easily created and grow if it focuses on concrete European solutions to our problems and on the appropriate democratic supranational governance. It can use the excellent example conveyed by En Marche in a Europe where everywhere the old political structures decline, stumble over the questions raised by a new world for which they do not seem to be well adapted, but where not everywhere the transition towards new and more appropriate structure succeeds.
Europeans are in my opinion ready and willing, and even beyond the current boundaries of the European Union. Pieyre-Alexandre it is our historical task to give a reality to this wave which can change the destiny of Europe in the XXIth century. Let us dare and be audacious, and finally put the European people at the center.
European readers please comment the here above and suggest your own ideas. This is our common duty. #WeAreEurope.