The CDU/CSU Begins Debate on the Institutional Reform of the Union The debate on the reform of the European Union as the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference approaches is fast spreading. After the document written by the French minister for community policies, Lamassoure, which proposes a refoundation pact for the union among a group (or core) of European countries, and the statements by the French prime minister, Balladur, in favour of a Europe of concentric circles, even the German christian-democratic party, the CDU/CSU, has clearly come out in favour of the creation of a "hard core" among those countries that intend to bring the European construction to its federal completion. With the stance taken by the CDU/CSU, which was presented to the Bundestag on September 1 by the president of the parliamentary group, Wolfgang Schauble, the struggle for the European federation has entered a new phase. Until now the parties have limited themselves to taking general positions in favour (or against) European unity, o

nly to then leave it to the governments to make the crucial decisions, in the secrecy of diplomatic negotiations. The last important result of this decision-making method was the Maastricht Treaty. However, with its document on European policy the CDU/CSU seeks to precisely define the objectives and working methods that will characterize the European structure. For the first time a political party has brought its power into play and has appealed to public opinion and the electorate for support for its European project. The decision is the more worthy of note because it is during the German national elections that the construction of European unity has arisen as a topic of conflict among the various competing parties, and because Kohl's party - the PPE - occupies a position at the forefront of the European Parliament. The stance by the CDU/CSU reveals an extraordinary similarity to the federalist diagnosis and to the institutional proposals which are today the object of the Campaign for the European Democracy

, promoted by the UEF in the main European countries. The following points must be emphasized. 1. The CDU/CSU has brought up the problem of the destiny of Germany as a national state that occupies a position at the center of a Europe that risks disintegration due to the nationalistic backlash unleashed by the breakup of the Soviet empire. The party couragiously and clearly states that "Germany's attempts to overcome by means of a hegemonic conquest this situation at the center of all European conflicts has ended in a checkmate. The military, political and moral catastrophe of 1945, the result of the last of these attempts, not only has made Germany aware of the insufficiency of its forces but has given rise to the conviction that security can only be guaranteed by a profound change in the state system of Europe that makes any aspiration toward hegemony inconceivable and unattractive". European unification has until now guaranteed peace because all the European countries have tried to achieve a security syste

m with, and not against, Germany. If the process of European integration is placed in doubt, then Germany would be forced to provide for its security through its own forces. This would be the start of a new historical tragedy. We have thus entered the conclusive phase of the process of European unification: the choice between the unity and the division of Europe can no longer be put off. For this reason the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996 is of decisive importance. 2. To achieve a stable and peaceful European order a legal base of a constitutional nature must be founded; or, as the document states, a base that is "quasi-constitutional, which clearly delimits the competencies of the European Union, of its member states, and those of its regions, by defining the fundamental ideas on which the Union is founded". This constitution or quasi-constitution "must take inspiration from the model of a federal state structure". As a consequence present-day community institutions must be reformed "by gradually makin

g the Parliament into a legislative body with the same rights as the Council; the latter will then assume the role, alongside other responsibilities deriving essentially from the field of intergovernmental activities, of a second chamber, that is of a Chamber of the States, and the Commission will take on the functions of a European government". These in fact are the institutional reforms that lead in the direction, invoked for years by the federalists, of giving the Community a democratic government that is capable of action. 3. Since not all the countries in the Community, in particular Britain, wish to accept the prospect of the European federation, the only chance of achieving this is to construct it with the countries in favour of it. The latter will thus form the "hard core", while the others, those of the outer circle, can take part in those policies they hold to be most appropriate. The CDU/CSU observes that "the monetary union represents the hard core of the political union" and that in fact this co

re already exists: it consists of those countries (Germany, France and the Benelux countries) that have kept alive the EMS and that will presumably be ready by 1997, as provided for in the Maastricht Treaty, for the choice regarding the common currency. The other countries, such as Italy and Spain, can enter the hard core if they so desire, as soon as they have undertaken all the necessary policies required by the convergence conditions called for in the Maastricht Treaty. 4. The choice of the hard core, or federal core, represents the only way to reconcile the enlargement of the Community with its democratic reform. The countries of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean will be able to enter the outer circle without having to immediately satisfy all the most stringent conditions for participation in the federal union. It is thus an open core which does not discriminate at all among the European countries. "The hard core is not an objective in itself", the CDU/CSU precisely states, "but a means for reconcilin

g the contradictory objectives of reform and enlargement".

(Continues...)