The Charter of Values of the European right: a pro-European, that is, non-federalist, manifesto
Salvini, Meloni, Le Pen, Orban, Morawiecki and others have signed a European Charter of Values .
The document begins by arguing that "the integration process has done a lot to keep the peace", only after making a reference to "the Atlantic link of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty". Any good Englishman would be able to explain that NATO has kept the peace. Here, nothing quaestio .
He continues arguing that the integration process would have done a lot for "mutual understanding and good relations between States" … but he can only refer to the EEC before the Euro, since he goes on to recall how "the series of crises that shook the 'Europe, in the last ten years, have shown that European cooperation is faltering ”. Here too, nothing quaestio .
* * *
European cooperation is faltering, "especially as nations feel slowly being stripped of their right to exercise their legitimate sovereign powers". Yeah, but what powers ? He continues: the EU "instead of protecting Europe and its heritage, instead of allowing the free development of European nations, is itself becoming a source of problems, concerns and uncertainty". Yes, but what free development ? Here the document takes a precise direction. It could say that among the legitimate sovereign powers stripped there is the conduct of an economic and budgetary policy, but it does not. He might say that free development is also economic, but it doesn't.
In doing so, the document becomes Hungarian and Polish, not Italian or French or Spanish. Or, if you prefer, it becomes value and not material. He is not talking about the dictatorship of the Stability Pact , the Fiscal Compact , the ECB or the Mes.
He is talking about "cultural and religious transformation, to arrive at the construction of a Europe without nations, aiming at the creation of a European Superstate, at the destruction or cancellation of European tradition, at the transformation of social institutions and fundamental moral principles". Objective of "radical forces" of which "the EU is increasingly becoming an instrument". Which translates into a "dangerous and invasive social engineering", a "moralistic hyperactivism", a "dangerous tendency to impose an ideological monopoly". All this "must lead to a legitimate resistance". Alright then. But isn't the MES? Shouldn't the ESM lead to legitimate resistance ?
Again, “we are convinced that the cooperation of European nations should be based on traditions, respect for the culture and history of European states, on respect for the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe… the family is the fundamental unit… politics in favor of the family should be the answer to mass immigration ”. Alright then. But isn't mass unemployment? Shouldn't the cooperation of European nations be based on full employment ?
* * *
Then comes the legal part. "The limits of the Union's competences are set by the principle of attribution – all competences not conferred on the Union belong to the Member States, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity". Great. Then the denunciation: “through a constant reinterpretation of the treaties by the EU institutions in recent decades, these delimitations have shifted significantly to the disadvantage of the states”. True.
So far, it seems to read a German jurist, for example the excellent Paul Kirchhof that we quote from the FAZ:
“The European Union is a league of states [ Staatenverbund ]. It is not a federal state [ Bundesstaat ] in which member states would be incorporated as federal states, but a particularly close association of states [Zusammenschluss von Staaten], to which member states have assigned responsibility for the realization of their common goals. States renounce a piece of sovereign power with a treaty, but reserve their statehood – the central identity of their state constitutions … the EU institutions are not authorized to grant themselves new competences and powers, but must act within the framework of the framework assigned to them by the treaty. Only in one state can the bodies establish further tasks and powers. The reorganization of the legal status of the Union into a State is reserved to the Member States, it is not provided for in the Treaty ".
Or the appeal signed by 29 German constitutionalists and appeared on the front page of the FAZ: against Brussels, "the German federal government must defend the European community of states [ europäische Gemeinschaft der Staaten ] … it is important to prevent the introduction of a federal state European [ europäischen Bundesstaat ] from the back door ”.
Concepts very clear to the Poles, as MEP Legutko : the Charter of Values "replies to those in Europe who push to accelerate integration … the point is how much power the national institutions have". The difference is that the German jurist spends these words about the ECB and monetary policy. While, the Charter speaks of European tradition and fundamental moral principles , as we have seen. And here the question arises: isn't full employment fundamental ?
* * *
What the German jurist defends is respect for the treaties. He is, therefore, a pro-European . Europe is its treaties and whoever defends these treaties is a pro-European . Likewise, the Charter of Values is pro-European . On the contrary, whoever wants to change the treaties (by inserting a federal budget, the so-called LGBT rights, by canceling the principle of unanimity), is not a pro-European , but a federalist . Besides, of course, a subversion of his own national Constitution, in the manner of Ezio Mauro who claims that removing the powers that the Italian Constitution recognizes from the Italian Parliament is a form of "constitutional patriotism" [sic].
In this regard, the Charter is somewhat confusing when it proposes the definition of "a set of inviolable competences of the Member States of the European Union, and an appropriate mechanism for their protection". Except then defend the unanimity rule, where still present. But, since the treaties can only be modified unanimously, the Charter would have done better to specify that the definition of inviolable competences must not pass from a modification of the treaties, but from a philological interpretation of them: in particular of 2 Tue , from which the whole dispute originates . Here the extenders could have been more precise. Also not to give the inspiration to shameless opponents, such as the aforementioned Ezio Mauro , to write that the Charter would demand "a radical reform" of the treaties, which is the opposite of the truth.
But Giorgia Meloni is also confusing when she claims to defend a confederal model while, on the other hand, and much more simply, what the Charter defends are the existing treaties. As Belpietro understands well: “the need is maintained for European countries to be able to exercise their legitimate sovereign powers in matters that have not been conferred on the EU”, ebbasta.
In any case, in defending the principle of unanimity, the Charter argues that its abolition "could lead to the de facto annulment of national constitutional bodies, including governments and parliaments, reduced to the function of approving decisions already taken by others". Which is true. But it is also exactly the condition to which the Italian Parliament is already reduced, in fiscal-economic-monetary matters. Of the reduction to colonial state in these matters, does it not matter?
* * *
So far the Charter. “An incredible reactionary mess” expression of a “reactionary sector”, for Massimo Cacciari . Expression of “the extreme right , the nationalist identity-right populist anti-immigration supremacist ”, according to Carretta ; of the " extreme right, nationalist and reactionary rather than conservative" according to Anna Zafesova ; that, "as all totalitarian ideologies do , from fascism to communism, it starts from a reversal of reality, accepted which everything is justified … even the denial of political freedoms ", according to Bonanni ; of the " ultra-right " with a " bio-political idea of the nation", according to the usual Ezio Mauro ; of “politicians who stifle democratic freedoms in their countries” according to Luciano Fontana ; of the "nationalist Catholic right" for Bonini (regardless of the fact that Finns, Baltics and Orban himself are Protestants).
All this, despite the fact that many are pleased with the absence of any reference to the Euro: Lauria , Montefiori, Massimo Franco, Imberti , Polillo . Only Barbera , intrigued but without offering any justification, notes: “the Europe to which the manifesto points does not seem compatible with a European Central Bank”.
* * *
The judgment of Forza Italia is hostile, where Giorgio Mulè comments that the "Judeo-Christian roots of the Union are already in the flag" (!) And Giuliano Urbani that the EPP "maintains a relationship with the founding fathers of early Europe" … as if De Gasperi had been an LGBT activist and the Treaty of Rome had provided for gender neutral toilets . The aforementioned Legutko comments : "Poland is more in line with European values than the EU" and, given that we are talking about the treaties and not polls, he is right.
Benevolo Luca Volontè : “Those who destroy the credibility and authority of the European institutions are those who have abused and conditioned those same institutions”. Marco Gervasoni is also benevolent , who considers the Charter as a document that “is Europeanist in its own way: only that it bears an idea of Europe that is different from that of the left. It is the Europe not so much of the sovereignists, a concept that has not yet been fully understood what it is, but of the conservatives ”. Quite right. But the question arises: does the Europe of the conservatives include the Stability Pact , the Fiscal Compact , the ECB and the Mes ?!
* * *
Of course, there will be those who find these naïve questions. The purpose of the Charter being nothing more than an attempt to favor the constitution of a single group in the European Parliament (an objective that seems distant, although it is actually the first time that these parties have met in a joint declaration). That is, a way to direct the phantom Conference for the Future of Europe , underway amid general indifference. Or another way, for Salvini, to give a blow to those who wanted to bring him to the EPP ( Giorgetti , who, in fact, did not pronounce himself on the Charter).
Yet, small clues let us hope that the game has a broader scope. First of all, Salvini's words: “it is my duty to reason with those who put the family, the fight against immigration at the center and do not want to go back to cuts and austerity ”. Words immediately referred to the Charter of Values which, however, does not mention austerity, as we have seen; evidently they refer to something else. Secondly, Carlo Pelanda notes that an abandonment of the federalist interpretation of the treaties "also implies a flexible innovation of the Eurozone". Thirdly, a conference organized, for the next few days in Rome, by some of the drafters of the Charter of Values and dedicated to things that are lacking in it. Is it possible to change the structure of the currency without going through a modification of the EU treaties, but only through their philological interpretation? Yes, just think of the fact that the Fiscal Compact and the Mes Treaty are intergovernmental and non-EU treaties, just think of the article passepartout 65 Tfeu or the absence of any provision regarding the exit from the single currency (equivalent to 50 Teu ), what allows you to do, literally, what you want. Such a change in the structure of the currency would be pro-European in the manner of the Charter of Values.
* * *
This explains, perhaps, the angry reaction of the Democratic Party which, with Letta and then the two group leaders Serracchiani and Malpezzi, invites the League to leave the Draghi government. Salvini's answer: “we are in perfect harmony with Draghi”. And that of Zanni : "the Democratic Party professes an uncritical Europeanism, we instead propose a pragmatic Europeanism , a project which among other things is also absolutely in line with the approach of this government and Draghi in Europe". In short, the war for the spoils of Mario Draghi's government is underway. Because, after all, everyone must have understood that Draghi is destined for the Quirinale and, in fact, he flaunts an ill-concealed detachment on the whole matter of the Charter. Hence, his government is little more than seaside. While its economic policy is destined to crash soon against the iceberg that we know well here . Leaving the field to a single € rista hypothesis: the Mes , as the Democratic Party would like. Or to alternative hypotheses, none of which is € rista but, possibly, could be pro-European in the manner of the Charter of Values.
The post The Charter of Values of the European right: a pro-European, ie non-federalist manifesto appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/la-carta-dei-valori-della-destra-europea-un-manifesto-europeista-cioe-non-federalista/ on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 03:53:00 +0000.