Beyond Words: How to turn the Declaration into EU Law and Policy?

Scenario 1: A Federal Union with a Directly Elected EU President

In a federal structure, the EU would undergo a substantial shift, establishing a centralized authority with clear executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This scenario envisions an elected EU President to enhance responsiveness and provide unified leadership in global matters. A centralized model would empower Brussels to enact policies swiftly and with fewer regional constraints, reinforcing the EU’s ability to respond to crises.

Constitutional Aspects:

Power Balance: As Cservák highlights, a federal system would necessitate robust checks and balances to maintain institutional legitimacy. “Power must be carefully distributed across EU institutions to prevent dominance by any single branch,” Cservák argues, underscoring the importance of an independent judiciary (e.g., ECJ) to arbitrate disputes between EU and Member State authorities.

EU President’s Role: The elected EU President would serve as a central figure for coordination and external representation, a role that currently lacks cohesion. The President could initiate legislation, backed by a bicameral legislature that includes both a European Parliament with proportional representation and a “Senate” that ensures Member State interests are respected.

Institutional Adaptation: This structure requires institutions to act more independently, with the ECJ acting as a constitutional court to enforce EU-wide standards. A more empowered European Commission could implement policies consistently across all Member States. Even with the idea of a second court handling private cases (Based on Fundamental Rights).

Pros and Cons:

Pros: A federal EU could achieve greater policy coherence and expedite responses to crises. With an EU President, the Union would have a single voice on the global stage, improving its standing in international relations.

Cons: As Trócsányi notes, Member States may resist this shift due to concerns over losing sovereignty. The centralization of power could also deepen democratic deficits if citizens feel detached from decisions made at the EU level.

Scenario 2: A Flexible, Multi-Tiered Union with Enhanced Subsidiarity

A multi-tiered EU offers a compromise between unity and autonomy, where Member States participate in core policies based on national priorities. This flexible model builds on the principle of subsidiarity, ensuring that power is only centralized when necessary. This approach preserves Member States’ legislative autonomy, while allowing for deeper integration in areas where collaboration enhances responsiveness.

Constitutional Aspects:

Power Balance and Institutional Role: Under a multi-tiered model, power would be shared dynamically between Member States and EU institutions. Cservák emphasizes that “the effectiveness of a multi-tiered system hinges on an adaptable legal framework that respects national sovereignty without sacrificing EU cohesion.” The European Council and Parliament would continue to shape EU-wide policies, but Member States could opt into deeper integration on select issues, such as defense or economic policy.

Enhanced Role for the Council: The European Council would act as the primary decision-maker on critical issues, mediating between varying levels of Member State integration. This enhanced role could empower the Council to arbitrate in situations where Member States opt out of particular policies.

Institutions and Decision-Making: Institutions like the European Parliament would maintain legislative authority for core areas, while allowing flexibility in enforcement. The European Commission would act as a facilitator, ensuring that each policy respects Member State preferences where possible, reducing the risk of overreach.

Pros and Cons:

Pros: The multi-tiered model respects sovereignty by allowing states to opt into specific policies. It provides flexibility without enforcing uniformity, an approach that aligns with recent discussions on strategic autonomy.

Cons: Critics argue that this structure risks fragmentation. K?r?sényi cautions that “a multi-tiered EU may suffer from policy inconsistency and legal ambiguity.” The system’s effectiveness would hinge on the EU’s capacity to mediate between integrated and non-integrated members without compromising decision-making.

3. A Confederal Alliance with Responsive Autonomy

A confederal approach prioritizes national sovereignty, granting the EU limited authority while preserving the autonomy of Member States. This model emphasizes a looser alliance, where the EU’s legislative role is minimized to focus on joint interests like trade, environmental standards, and specific aspects of security policy. Responsiveness to local issues would be prioritized, allowing countries greater flexibility in policy-making.

Constitutional Aspects:

Institutional Structure and Sovereignty: In this model, EU institutions would act as coordinators rather than centralized authorities. The European Council, representing heads of state, would have the primary decision-making power, while the European Parliament and Commission take on advisory or administrative roles.

Minimalist EU Role: The EU would intervene in policy only when strictly necessary, respecting Member State sovereignty in areas like fiscal and judicial policy. Cservák suggests that “such a minimalist structure could benefit from enhanced subsidiarity principles,” where decision-making stays as close to the citizenry as possible.

Judicial Power Limitation: The ECJ’s role would be redefined to enforce only core treaty obligations rather than broader interpretations of EU law. This could mitigate concerns about overreach, allowing national courts to retain control over issues sensitive to sovereignty.

Pros and Cons:

Pros: This approach resonates with Eurosceptic views, allowing states to manage their own legislative priorities while cooperating on select common goals. A confederation is also less likely to face resistance from Member States wary of centralization.

Cons: However, a confederal EU would face challenges in achieving cohesive foreign and security policy. This limited authority could weaken Europe’s collective response to global crises, as demonstrated by the fragmented initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finding Balance Through Institutional Innovation

The EU’s path forward will likely involve a hybrid approach that combines aspects of federalism, flexibility, and confederal autonomy. Legal scholars alert that balancing sovereignty with unity requires institutions that are adaptable, responsive, and reflective of both local and EU-wide interests.

The declaration’s potential transformation into legislation will require careful constitutional restructuring, where the EU can act decisively when necessary while respecting the diverse priorities of Member States. Each scenario suggests that achieving a “European equilibrium” demands not only vision but also a legal and institutional framework robust enough to uphold the values of unity, democracy, and resilience.

Thank you for your rewarding attention,

Dr. Attila nuray

Recommendations:

1. Equilibrium, Dr. Attila Nuray, 2020, p. respectfully citing my fellow thinkers;

2. Cservák, Constitutional Frameworks and EU Sovereignty, p. 23-29.

3. Trócsányi, Sovereignty and Integration in the European Union, p. 88-92.

4. K?r?sényi, European Governance: Challenges and Prospects, p. 103-107.

5. Bóka János, The European Economic Union, p. 58-63.