« Antidemocratic and xenophobic forces of Europe have always been attracted by the European unity dream, the mystic of the imperial Rome»
(FB - 1998)
" Being a citizen is a voluntary act "
(FB - 2009)
"Thinking about the future only makes sense if it is aimed at improving one’s thinking about the present and about the trends at work"
(FB - 1998)
"The European project is not a dream, but a hope. It is rooted in rationality, which is not the case with dreams. We Europeans have seen our dreams end in nightmares too often not to be suspicious."
(FB - 2005)
"The strength of a network is judged at the information level of the weakest link, or more precisely the link furthest from the centre of the network."
(FB - 2004)
"Europe's destiny is escaping the two "Greats" and it will come knocking on the door of the Europeans."
(FB - 1989)
"The history of Europe is a bit like a multifaceted diamond. Everyone sees the same diamond... but no one sees exactly the same facets."
(FB - E-storia project, 2004)
"Let us dare the future as the founding fathers of Europe did"
(FB - "From EU to Euroland", 2001)
"The European citizenship can not be decreed. The European citizen can only be born..."
(FB - 1992)
"Every state is a minority in the EU. In any case, let’s not forget that if all our states went into building the EU it is because they all felt too small to face alone both their future and the rest of the world."
(FB - 2003)
"From a single (EU) Currency to a single (EU) Citizenship. The euro is only an instrument."
(FB - 1997)
"An empire is always providing platforms where conflicts and wars prolife­rate... an empire needs enemies, whilst a Community requires partners."
(FB - 1992)
"Europe’s history has taught us that dreams and nightmares are the two faces of the same coin"
(FB - “Europe is Peace” 2006)
"Everybody wants to have a successful enlargement whereas it is a successful enlarged EU which is important."
(FB - 2002)
"It is clear that the existing national political parties can not serve two masters: national and European."
(FB - IDE, 1989)
"It takes teamwork to make Europe move forward."
(FB - 2005)
"There is nothing like one European. The European is a team of Europeans... the only way we can imagine a European, it is a team of people from different countries, not a single man or woman."
(FB - Enschede (NL) 2012)
"On the horizon with a heaven of freedom and a land of responsibility, this is perhaps the soul of Europe."
(FB - 1992)
"The future challenge for the European project is not about Europe anymore, it is about the Europeans."
(FB - 2005)
"The more Brussels speaks English, the less Brussels understands the Europeans"
(FB - 2004)
"Occupy the Future of Europe!"
("What do YOU want as a future for AEGEE?" Franck Biancheri at the 2012 Agora in Enschede)
"To combine new technologies and democratic principles to succeed in the entry of European integration in the 21st century or e-democracy at the service of Euro-democracy"
(FB - EUSV, 2001)
"In the years 00 of the 21st century, democratization can only take place in the perspective of the democratic election of a European executive that remains to be invented."
(FB - EUSV, 2001)
"We must build the European Community, otherwise Europe will soon be culturally Americanised, politically Finlandised and technologically Japanised"
EGEE I, 1984

“Size does not matter any more in the EU” – Franck Biancheri, 2003“Dans l’UE ce n’est plus la taille qui compte” – Franck Biancheri, 2003

  Paris, 30/01/2003– Franco – German proposals, Commission or Council, rotating or stable Council Presidency, structure of the European Parliament, … most of the European debate seems to be seen through the prism of Member States size. But ‘Small or big?’, is it still a relevant question?

Every state is a minority in the EU

Today’s EU, and even more tomorrow’s Europe, has become a unique political entity where states are always small compared to the rest of the EU. Even the biggest ones, Germany, France, UK or Italy, are just a small fraction of European population. Tomorrow, with more than 500 millions EU citizens, Germany will only represent 15% of EU population. Indeed all Member States have become small and differ only by being smaller or not than others. If we go beyond the EU and look on the world scene, this is even more obvious.

Thinking ‘small and smaller’ rather ‘big and small’ does change a lot one’s perspective

Politicians, diplomats, intellectuals may seriously see their conce ptions modify whether they keep on thinking in terms of ‘big and small’ countries rather than ‘small and smaller member – states’. Let’s take the French for instance. We were definitely in the ‘big’ category for centuries (at European and global level). From this time we tend to keep on thinking in the same way whilst more and more often make mistake in our international or European strategies because we overestimate our influence or strength. Too bad indeed, because we have kept a significant influence. But this influence will be much more efficiently used if we would consider it from today’s point of view of being a minority in Europe and a very small minority in the world. Being French, I speak of my country; but let’s be clear, all the other ‘big’ ones may get the message as well.

Let’s take the Council/Commission issue to see that small/big divide is totally irrelevant

Today’s rift is supposed to be between the small countries willing to strengthen the Commission while the big states would like to reinfor ce the Council. But meanwhile, small states want to keep a Commissioner (which creates a totally unmanageable College of Commissioners), while big countries disagree most of the time on major issues (see again on Iraq where Italy and UK go one direction, w hile France and Germany go another one). And, that’s not all: the collegial process at the Commission would require consensus, while the council seem to move into more qualified majority voting.

Not only is this division irrelevant, but it prevents real debates to occur

Politicians, media and intellectuals love to focus on this debate between ‘small and big’. Easy concept, easy thinking, easy polemics. Problem: it’s all fake and prevent the same ‘opinion leaders’ to discuss real issues like:

  • How will the EU bureaucratic machine be democratically controlled when more power will be transferred to it?
  • How will Europe be felt as ‘effective’ at citizen’s level?
  • How will we generate an accountable political process and structure in tomorrow’s Europe?
  • How will we be heard worldwide as Europeans?

From a citizen point of view, the size issue is none. Citizens are always the smallest part of any system in any case; so they don’t care much on size issues (national elites do on the contrary because it is part of their ‘job’ which is at stake). They care about deliverables; not ego trips.

Size is a static feature. And in static you have ‘state’

States are static. That’s were their name come from. The EU is an ongoing process which cannot be understood or influenced from a static position. Size is definitely an argument for state apparatus and elites, preventing people to look at what makes their nation strong: their people, their skills, their history, their visions, … .

Size is no argument. It is just an excuse to prevent innovative solutions to be found. On the long run, it is not the size of Germany (not even existing at the time) which made Beethoven a European genius, neither the size of England which created the Elizabethan era. Neither it is size which made a difference when Europeans abstained to let Ghadafi’s Libya becoming chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. Shame is “one size fits all”. Good leadership is what Europeans expect. Not big or small leadership!

In any case, let’s not forget that if all our states went into building the EU … it is because they all felt too small to face alone both their future and the rest of the  world.

Franck Biancheri, Paris, 30/01/2003

©Franck Biancheri Documentation 2018

[divider]

More articles:

[divider]

  Paris, 30/01/2003– Rapprochement franco-allemandes, Commission ou Conseil, Présidence tournante ou stable du Conseil, structure du Parlement européen, … la plupart des débats européens semblent être perçus à travers le prisme de la taille des Etats membres. Mais “petit ou grand?” la question est-elle encore pertinente aujourd’hui?

Chaque état est une minorité dans l’UE

L’UE d’aujourd’hui, et encore plus l’Europe de demain, est devenue une entité politique unique où les États sont toujours petits par rapport au reste de l’UE. Même les plus grands, Allemagne, France, Royaume-Uni ou Italie, ne représentent qu’une petite fraction de la population européenne. Demain, avec plus de 500 millions de citoyens européens, l’Allemagne ne représentera que 15% de la population de l’UE. En effet, tous les États membres sont devenus petits et ne diffèrent qu’en étant plus petits ou non que d’autres. Si nous sortons du cadre de l’UE et regardons la scène mondiale, c’est encore plus évident.

Penser «petit et plus petit» plutôt «grand et petit» change beaucoup de perspectives

Les politiciens, les diplomates, les intellectuels peuvent sérieusement voir leurs conceptions changer s’ils continuent à penser en termes de «grands et petits» pays plutôt que de «petits et plus petits États membres». Prenons les Français par exemple. Nous étions définitivement dans la catégorie des «grands» depuis des siècles (au niveau européen et mondial). Depuis, nous avons tendance à continuer à penser de la même manière tout en faisant de plus en plus souvent des erreurs dans nos stratégies internationales ou européennes parce que nous surestimons notre influence ou notre force. C’est dommage, car en effet nous avons gardé une influence significative. Mais cette influence serait beaucoup plus efficace si nous nous considérions aujourd’hui comme une minorité en Europe et une très petite minorité dans le monde. Étant français, je parle de mon pays; mais soyons clairs, tous les autres «grands» peuvent aussi comprendre le message.

Prenons la question du Conseil / Commission pour voir que la petite / grande fracture est totalement hors de propos

Le fossé d’aujourd’hui est censé se situer entre les petits pays désireux de renforcer la Commission tandis que les grands Etats voudraient renforcer le Conseil. Mais entre-temps, les petits États veulent garder un commissaire (ce qui crée un collège de commissaires totalement ingérable), alors que les grands pays se disputent la plupart du temps sur des questions majeures (voir encore une fois l’exemple de la question irakienne qui divise les couples Grande-Bretagne/Italie d’un côté, France/Allemagne de l’autre). Et ce n’est pas tout: le processus collégial à la Commission nécessiterait un consensus, alors que le conseil semble vouloir passer à un vote à la majorité qualifiée.

Non seulement cette division n’est pas pertinente, mais elle empêche de véritables débats

Les politiciens, les médias et les intellectuels aiment se concentrer sur ce débat entre «petits et grands». Concept facile, pensée facile, polémique facile. Problème: tout est faux et empêche les mêmes «leaders d’opinion» de discuter de vrais problèmes comme:

  • Comment la machine bureaucratique de l’UE sera-t-elle contrôlée démocratiquement quand plus de pouvoir lui sera transféré?
  • Comment l’Europe sera-t-elle perçue comme «efficace» au niveau des citoyens?
  • Comment allons-nous générer un processus politique et une structure responsables dans l’Europe de demain?
  • Comment serons-nous entendus dans le monde entier en tant qu’Européens?

Du point de vue des citoyens, la question de la taille est nulle. Les citoyens sont toujours le plus petit élément de n’importe quel système; ils ne se soucient donc pas beaucoup des questions de taille (pour les élites nationales au contraire c’est une partie de leur «travail» qui est en jeu). Ils se soucient des rendus non pas des divagations d’ego.

La taille traduit un concept “établi”. Et en établi, vous avez “état”

Les états sont statiques/établis. C’est de là que vient leur nom. L’UE est un processus continu qui ne peut être compris ou influencé à partir d’une position statique. La taille est certainement un argument pour l’appareil d’Etat et les élites, empêchant les gens de regarder ce qui rend leur nation forte: leurs gens, leurs compétences, leur histoire, leurs visions, ….

La taille n’est pas un argument. C’est juste une excuse pour éviter que des solutions innovantes soient trouvées. Sur le long terme, ce n’est pas la taille de l’Allemagne (qui n’existait même pas à l’époque) qui a fait de Beethoven un génie européen, ni la taille de l’Angleterre qui a créé l’ère élisabéthaine. Ce n’est pas non plus la taille qui a fait la différence lorsque les Européens se sont abstenus de laisser la Libye de Ghadafi devenir la présidente de la Commission des droits de l’homme de l’ONU. La honte serait “l’uniformisation”. Un bon leadership est ce que les Européens attendent. Pas un grand ou un petit leadership!

Quoiqu’il en soit, n’oublions pas que si tous nos Etats ont rejoint la construction de l’UE … c’est parce qu’ils se sentaient tous trop petits pour faire face seuls à leur avenir et au reste du monde.

Franck Biancheri, Paris, 30/01/2003 (traduit de l’anglais: “Size does not matter any more in the EU“)

©Franck Biancheri Documentation 2018

[divider]


Visitez le centre de documentation !

[divider]