CATCHING UP WITH ...
Mario
Monti: EU may well disintegrate
The
former Italian prime minister and European commissioner blames
cynical national governments for endangering the unity of the bloc.
By FRANCESCO
GUERRERA 4/24/16, 9:00 AM CET Updated 4/25/16, 6:17 AM CET
MILAN — Mario
Monti is worried about the break-up of Europe.
For the first time
in a long academic and political life spent in and around the
European project, Monti fears that a combination of morally “corrupt”
(his word) national politics, structural holes in the Brussels
machine, and external crises may trigger the collapse of the EU.
Or, worse — the
return of the bloody past that preceded it.
Milan was basking in
unseasonably warm weather when the former Italian prime minister and
European commissioner sat down for an interview with POLITICO last
week. But inside the airy office of the president of Bocconi
University, the 73-year-old Italian’s current role, the mood was
anything but sunny.
“The EU is going
through a crisis which leads me and others for the first time to
consider whether we are not heading towards disintegration,” Monti
said, with his calm tone and deliberate cadence only emphasizing the
seriousness of his words.
“The EU has never
been hit by such a high number of different crises of this gravity,”
he continued, referring to the migration problem, the rise of
terrorism, and the bloc’s persistent economic malaise. “What I am
concerned about is that, although the EU has developed itself
historically through a process of crisis, response to the crisis, and
advancement, this time around it may well not happen.”
Monti’s skepticism
over the wisdom of Jean Monnet — who famously said that “Europe
will be forged in crises” — stems from his low opinion of
national governments and the body that represents them in the
Brussels’ pantheon: the European Council.
Having himself been
in the EU’s executive branch — as both commissioner for the
internal market and more famously as competition czar, and then as
prime minister of Italy in the European Council — Monti is clear on
where the fault lies.
“Nobody could
seriously pretend that the full-time EU institutions [the Commission,
Parliament, European Central Bank, and European Court of Justice] are
the ones responsible for the lack of adequate and timely responses to
the present constellation of crises,” he said. “That is the
Council, in particular in its highest formation, i.e., the European
Council.”
While he was in
office, Monti’s critics often charged that his training as an
academic economist and his technocratic bent meant he wasn’t as
skilled as the “professionals” in the dark art of politics.
But today, perhaps
because he is largely out of the fray after a disappointing showing
in the 2013 Italian elections, Monti is crystal clear on what’s
gone wrong at the pinnacle of EU decision making.
“I think the
turning point was the financial crisis, which coincided with the
French presidency of 2008,” he said. “The problem of the day was
rescuing the banks and even rescuing states to some extent. That was
to be done with money from member states, not from the tiny EU
budget. Therefore, it was inevitable that the power largely shifted
from the Commission to the Council and, within it, to the top table,
the European Council.”
In his view, the
Council’s rise to prominence has been coupled with the steady drift
of national political discourses towards nationalism, populism and a
focus on the short-term. “The degree of mistrust and sheer
prejudices between North and South and between East and West has
never been so high and so unashamedly voiced,” he said.
Monti stops there,
but his analysis contains an implicit criticism of the abrasive
tactics practiced by Matteo Renzi, the current Italian prime
minister, on the EU stage.
“Unfortunately,
this has started to pay off, at least in the short-term, for
politicians who cultivate the gut feelings of their citizens. Even
heads of government and ministers belonging to traditionally
pro-European parties now indulge in this habit. They hit out at the
EU and also to other member states in bilateral acrimony.”
By now, his disgust
for this “gut-feeling” politics is almost bursting through
Monti’s polite persona of an old-fashioned Italian gentleman.
“In a sense, we
live in mature democracies, but opinion-makers and citizens are still
characterized by the medieval attitude of condoning, of being lenient
to, les caprices du prince [the whims of the prince],” he said. “A
politician is brought to trial, rightly, if he steals a glass or he
displays a corrupt behavior. But the greatest ‘corruption’ of
all, which is to misuse the democratic process for a clear political
self-interest, is something that is taken as a natural state of
life.”
With his age and
experience, Monti is a bridge between a period of fitful but
relentless European integration and the current moment when the idea
of an “ever-closer Union” is being attacked on all fronts. But he
contended that his views are borne out of genuine fear rather than
nostalgia.
“If it is an
irreversible process, we are going to lose our democracies in our
member states,” he said. “Because what is at stake now … is the
first wave of an earthquake deriving, in my view, from deeper
stresses in the underground of politics. But at the same time, there
is also a declining trust in national authorities, a declining
participation in votes, a growing impatience with the lack of
performance by national governments.”
The question is what
he and other members of the traditional European elite can do about
this.
There is a long
pause and then: “Not much.” Then another pause before a call for
an “intellectual insurgency” to expose the cynicism of national
governments when dealing with Europe.
“It should be made
clear to the public that often positions held [in the European
Council] not only do not respond to a general European interest but
in most cases, they … are mainly motivated by the party’s
political, if not the personal political, interest that the leader of
the day has back home.”
It sounds like a
tall order — precisely because of what Monti described as the
“degradation” of national politics.
He is, however,
working on a more concrete, technocratic project as chair of the EU’s
“high-level group on own resources.” The name is a classic piece
of European linguistic obfuscation that clouds the group’s real
purpose: to reform and perhaps expand the EU budget.
Monti sees his
latest European assignment, which he has to deliver by the end of the
year, as an attempt to rectify some of the wrongs he sees.
According to him,
“over the past eight, 10 months for the first time in many years,
we have seen the member states … saying, for the refugee crisis,
the eurozone crisis, the fight against terrorism, ‘hey Brussels,
this has to be a new function of yours.’ We want to work on the
simple logic that if there are new functions, maybe there should also
be new resources.”
But why does he keep
fighting for the EU? Why not enjoy the prestige of heading Italy’s
most respected university and leave it at that?
Like many times in
the past — when he blocked the mega-merger of General Electric and
Honeywell, or when he pushed through deeply unpopular economic
reforms in Italy during the eurozone crisis — Monti is unwavering
in his convictions.
He said he is
speaking out “not for a moral crusade.” Rather, it is because he
believes that “on European soil, the natural state of affairs is
not peace — if it weren’t for the structured integration of
countries, which have a habit of going to war with each other from
time to time.”
Authors:
Francesco Guerrera
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário