In politics, it’s not a bad
idea to consider the impact on the system of government in formulating, voting
on, and enacting laws and regulations. It is not enough to make sure that
relationships with political donors are not impaired. Nor, in a federal system,
is it enough to look at the implications regarding either the state or the
federal level. I contend that the implications for the federal system itself
should be formally and informally considered.
In the context of the E.U.’s
difficulty with securing its borders even after facing unprecedented migrants
entering by boat or even walking in the early 2020s, it is understandable that representatives
elected by E.U. citizens and sitting in the European Parliament would try to
shore up a federal response, given that in the last quarter of 2024,
some state officials took action at state borders in violation of E.U.
law. Undercutting federal rule-of-law is a good way to trigger a
collapse of a federal system, especially one that had only existed for decades
rather than centuries.
On October 23, 2024, the
European People’s Party joined the Patriots for Europe, the European
Conservatives and Reformists, and the ESN parties in voting in favor of an
amendment that goes as follows: “The European Parliament demands appropriate
funding for external physical barriers at the Union border.”[1]
In other words, the far-right parties wanted a wall at the border. Although the
amendment passed with 329 of the elected representatives voting for it, the
resolution to which the amendment was attached was later voted down. Victor
Negrescu of the S&D party told reporters that a resolution is not necessary
for the Parliament to be able to negotiation with the Council on what projects
to fund. Tomas Tobé, vice chair of the European People’s Party, countered that
because “it is our long-standing policy to advocate for E.U. funding for
external border infrastructure,” it is “also in line with the position of the
European Council: physical barriers are essential for securing the E.U.’s
external borders and managing migration policy.”[2]
At the very least, formally letting the Council know the will of the Parliament
wouldn’t hurt.
It did hurt the coalition of
parties that supported President Von der Leyen’s reelection as President of the
E.U.’s executive branch, the Commission, for members of the Renew Europe party
could have seen the European People’s Party as betraying the centrist governing
coalition in the Parliament by joining the far-right parties there in support
of building a wall. But such grumblings may have been overdone, as it was still
very unlikely that the EPP would join with the parties on the right on much
else, given the daylight between them and the EPP.
Moreover, the resolution
served an overriding positive role in fortifying the E.U. itself in regard to
its federal system. For it had been a failing policy at the federal level that
had prompted more than one state government to exploit the “national emergency”
loophole in the Schengen Agreement by patrolling state land-border
crossings. In other words, showing signs that the federal government might finally
competently secure the E.U.’s borders might get the state violators of Schengen
to back off and follow rather than violate the Agreement. The E.U. had only
existed for just over thirty years; its federal system was still fluid and thus
vulnerable to punctures by state officials heeding popular pressure at home. From
abroad, that looks like self-inflicted wounds within the European Union. To some
officials of some of the states, most notably Hungary and Slovenia, the
Commission may seem to be foreign, but this is not so in state-federal
relations within a federal system. For such a system to be viable beyond the
short term, the two systems of government—that at the union level and those at
the state level—cannot be working against each other without even respecting each
other’s laws.
Especially in a new federal
system, government officials at both levels would be wise, if they want
to continue to get the benefits from the combined power on the world stage, to
consider the implications on the federal system itself from any policy proposal
or vote. Even as of 2024, European integration politically and economically was
not a foregone conclusion. Even though the E.U. had managed by fits and starts
rather than in a linear line toward a more perfect union, the threat to the viability
of E.U. law, including directives and regulations, was increasing in 2024.
State governments ignoring federal law is an existential threat to any union of states, which is politically distinct from a mere military alliance or trade “bloc,” such as BRICS. Willfully violating federal law could represent more than just a temporary slippage back before bouncing forward again, especially if a few such occurrences gain traction and thus become a de facto norm. Then the de jure federal system is really in trouble, with collapse being even imminent. The category mistake of viewing a federal system in which governmental sovereignty has been divided (i.e., “dual sovereignty”) as an alliance or even worse as a trading association, or “bloc,” can give rise to such destructive opportunistic violations of federal rules, directives, and regulations (i.e., federal law) because they are not viewed as real law. Similarly, the Euroskeptic ideological "word-game" wherein political parties at the federal level are merely "groups" subtly undermines the legitimacy of E.U. law and democracy at the federal level.
Voting for stronger federal action at the federal borders may have had the effect of reassuring nervous state officials enough that they might return to supporting rather than violating the strictures that hold the Union together. At the time, it could hardly be said with confidence that the E.U. itself would continue as a going concern, so much long-term benefit could be gained by governmental officals at both levels asking themselves how their proposals and actions could impact the federal system itself.
1. Vincenzo Genovese and Paula Soler, “EPP
and Far Right MEPs Call to Build a Wall at the E.U. Border, Stoking Controversy,”
Euronews.com, October 23, 2024.
2. Ibid.
