The opinion that a genuine integration of fiscal and economic policy is necessary to make the EU capable of competing with other key players in the world economy, such as China, US and India, has been gaining popularity. Among others, it has appeared in a recent political manifesto co-authored by the leaders of Green and Liberal political groups in the European Parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Guy Verhofstadt. The expectation that after the next European elections (June 2014) another revision of the Treaties will increase the number of common policies and expand competences of community institutions has been expressed also by Viviane Reding, the EU commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship.
Not surprisingly, the strengthening of “Brussels” would happen at the expense of national governments and their political elites. While the public opinion is ambiguous (the results of Eurobarometer surveys show that support for the EU as such is waning, but at the same time the popularity of the European Parliament, the main pro-integration force, is on the rise), a period of intense political debate is to be expected. In this debate, the supporters of a more integrated, federalized, Union will be pitched against political elites of the Member States, who in defense of their vested interests (such as power to negotiate the EU budget) will revert to the old ideals of national identity and sovereignty.
The proposed paper is intended as a power audit of the competing camps. For reference, I shall examine the case of the Philadephia Convention in 1787: similarly to the “postnational revolution” for which Cohn-Bendit and Verhofstadt are calling, it meant a sudden sovereignty transfer which objectively limited the power of local elites in individual states. I plan to check what made such a change possible, and whether any of the conditions which was present in post-colonial Northern America can be met in the post-crisis EU.
