A revisionist interpretation of the post-war development of European integration and the European Union (EU), this book attempts to re-evaluate and re-evaluate conventional interpretations of European integration. This challenging and thought-provoking book is essential reading for anyone interested in the history and philosophy of European federalism, European politics and the history of the EU. It arose from the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer as an alternative to my original, rather unimaginative proposal for a successor volume to my earlier study Federalism and the European Union: Political Ideas, Influences and Strategies in the European Community, 1972–87, published by Routledge in 1989.
Since 1989, I have become even more convinced of the significance of federalism in building Europe. At the time, it was risky business for an academic in the United Kingdom (UK) to make almost any claim for federalism in the progress and evolution of European integration. Today, the research community on European integration in the UK is much more likely than ever to accept the resilience and relevance of federalism.
Scholarly research requires us to consider that many different approaches to the study of European integration and revisionist history should be welcomed in the continued search for convincing explanations based on empirically valid analyzes and interpretations.
Introduction
The comparison of a federal Europe with the disappearance of the national state is of course oversimplified and chimerical. It has gained a strong hold in important parts of the populations of member states such as Denmark, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom (UK) and it continues to be the source of much confusion and misunderstanding about Europe's ultimate destination. Part of the problem lies in the use and abuse of conventional language and terminology to describe the construction of Europe.
The building of Europe and the survival of the nation state are, as Alan Milward's historical research has shown, completely compatible. Once the long intellectual journey of the European idea has been explored and clarified in Chapter 1 and the theoretical discourse of federalism and federation analyzed in Chapter 2, the book follows a fairly simple, straightforward revisionist route intended to explore federal ideas, expose to establish and investigate. influences and strategies as they emerge in the political history of the European adventure between 1950 and 2000. It has always been a fantasy to pretend that the construction of Europe can be understood exclusively in terms of the activities of the so-called founding fathers of the European integration, such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Paul-Henri Spaak and Johan Willem Beyen.
It is time to turn to the first chapter which introduces us to the historical and philosophical origins of the European idea as a federal idea and prepares the ground for a study of the theoretical discourse on federalism and federation in Western Europe that follows it.
1 Federalism, the state and the European idea
It is in this sense that Francis H. Hinsley referred to the origin and history of the state and sovereignty as inextricably linked. For now, let us consider the implications of our brief examination of the continental European tradition of federalism for European integration. Let us now turn to an examination of the main features of the European tradition of federalism, which remain fundamental to the idea of a 'federal' Europe.
What does our brief survey of the European tradition of federalism tell us about a 'federal' Europe today. This discussion of the relevance of the European tradition of federalism for a 'federal' Europe brings us back to the European idea itself. The essence of the paradox lies in the empirical origins of both the nation-state and the 'European idea'.
This allusion to a 'post-modern' federalism has obvious implications for the EU, which is the latest stage in the evolution of the European idea as a constitutional and political idea.
2 Federalism and federation in Western Europe
However, it is important to note that this conceptual distinction between federalism and federation has not replaced previous approaches to the study of the subject. In short, federal thought and practice cuts across the established borders of the state and the EU. What does this brief examination of the two faces of federalism tell us about the relationship between federalism and European integration and what is its
The EU – the current expression of the European project – has reached a new crossroads in its economic and political development. From this admittedly brief reading, IR theory tells us little about the nature of the relationship between federalism and European integration. It is now time to conclude the chapter with some comments on the nature of the theoretical discourse on federalism, federation, European integration and the EU.
It is very clear from our concluding survey of federalism and federation in the context of the EC/EU that most academics remain uncomfortable with this relationship.
3 Federalism and the building of Europe, 1950–72
Mass publics could then relate the achievement of national political goals directly to the existence of the EC. It is certainly true that some European federalists foresaw the eventual disappearance of the nation-state. And it is also clear that the European mass public, much to the dismay of the Federalists, returned to their national state governments in droves in the immediate post-war years.
Milward's thesis on the rescue of the nation-state in the early post-war years and its relationship to progress in European integration deserves further investigation. What then are we to make of Milward's historical revisionism regarding the ECSC. One recent commentator on Monnet's role in the creation and operation of the ECSC, John Gillingham, has already admitted that the ECSC was 'in many ways a disappointment'.
In the light of this interpretation, we can therefore be better advised to interpret Milward's research more in terms of the post-war interpretation. However, it is important to emphasize the decisive role of the European federalists in the feverish activities of this period. In dealing with the origins of the European Economic Community (EEC), Milward is clearly on comfortable ground.
In short, it reflected the triumph of the nation-state over its supposed European successor. However, the significance of this event must be reassessed in the light of subsequent political developments in the EC. According to Monnet, the failure of the Fouchet plan was implicit from the start in the way the negotiations were conducted.
The failure of the project for political union meant that for the rest of the 1960s there was no formal political cooperation in the EEC. This was the gradual rise of the phrase 'European Union' in the context of the debates on the Fouchet plan. In doing so, it felt that it was acting according to the letter and the spirit of the Treaty.
But even though the results were disappointing, something had clearly happened to the EC in the late 1960s.
4 Federalism and the struggle for European Union, 1973–84
The year 1973 is often considered as another turning point in the political and economic evolution of the EC. At this point, it is imperative that we consider the role played by Spinelli in the Commission's initiative. Spinelli did not agree that the various reports of the Community's institutions had been entrusted in the first place to 'a wise political man'.
Before leaving this episode in the history of the European Union, it is important to look again at the general significance of the Tindemans report. We can now better understand the change in the Commission's attitude towards direct elections in the early 1970s. This is hard to refute if we examine Spinelli's role and thinking in the evolving life of the Community.
Based on this nexus of achievements, the Federalists were particularly active and interested in the creation of the EMS. Much of the report focused on the roles and workloads of the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The regular six-monthly personal reporting of the President of the European Council to the European Parliament was deemed appropriate.
Indeed, it was "the very existence of the Community that could ultimately be put in jeopardy".98. But it was perhaps the best achievement he could have secured in the circumstances of the early 1980s. But if we turn our attention to the reform of the Commission's role, we have a somewhat different picture.
First, he established a clear link between his mandate and that of the EP. Our research was far from exhaustive, but it allows us to get a general picture of the interpretation of the European Union in the EP in the mid-1980s. 92 For a detailed review of these successful proposals, see M. Palmer, 'The Development of the Institutional Role of the European Parliament', p.
96 "The 30 May Mandate and the Resumption of the European Community", European File, 16/81, Brussels: EC Commission, October 1981.
5 Federalism, European Union and the Single European Act, 1985–88
In that case, these six months of the French Presidency would go down in history.5. Indeed, he was the first president of the Fifth Republic who was not a Fifth Republic man. He also required the support of West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in the customary Paris-Bonn axis approach to Community affairs.
In particular, their public rhetoric and attitude provided a useful impetus to the first phase: the work of the Dooge Committee. A close analysis of the Dooge report reveals the main difference between it and the EUT. In the EUT the role of the Commission was substantially changed, while in the Dooge report it was merely strengthened.
Firstly, the Commission's acquiescence risked losing sight of the importance of the general institutional question. It was in the area of the EP's changed institutional role that the federalists found the greatest hope. The goal of the Single Market in 1992 was inextricably linked to support for the SEA.
Thatcher had adopted ESM mainly to secure the benefits of the internal market for the UK. First, let us consider the origins and nature of the Single Market project, which formed the core of the EIA. It is clear that the origins of the Single Market project can be traced back at least to the 1970s and early 1980s.
Indeed, it was "indispensable for understanding European integration".50 However, neofunctionalism did not "constitute a comprehensive framework for understanding the process of integration". The governments of member states in the European Council remained firmly in control of the fate of the EC.
