Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Europe 2025
    • The Crisis Of Globalisation
    • The Future of Work
    • What is inequality?
    • Inequality In Europe
    • Europe’s Refugee Crisis
    • Where Now After Brexit?
    • Understanding PEGIDA in Context
  • Podcast
  • Videos
    • Video Podcasts
    • Social Europe Talk
  • Books
  • Papers
    • Brexit Paper Series
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
  • Advertise
  • Newsletter

Macron and Kramp-Karrenbauer: vive la différence?

by Andrew Watt on 21st March 2019 @andrewwatteu

The proxy media exchange between the French president and the leader of the German Christian democrats is a sign of an emergent European public sphere.

public sphere

Andrew Watt

On March 4th something unusual—as far as I can recall, unprecedented—happened in European politics. The head of state of a member state of the European Union, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, directly addressed the citizens of all EU countries, simultaneously, in no less than 22 European languages. He bypassed the usual intergovernmental channels completely and the filtering systems of 28 nationally organised media at least partially.

While the unusual form of the address undoubtedly ruffled some feathers, it drew a high-level response. The general secretary of the Christian Democratic Union and likely Germany’s next chancellor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (widely known in Germany as ‘AKK’), issued a reply, made available in five languages. Beyond the fact that this did not come from the current head of government, the exchange points, against the background of the incipient campaign for the European elections at the end of May, to emergent signs of a phenomenon whose absence has long been considered a critical weakness of the EU—a European public sphere (Öffentlichkeit).

But what of the content? Here the differences are marked but in the context of the upcoming European elections that may not be a bad thing.

Join our growing community newsletter!

"Social Europe publishes thought-provoking articles on the big political and economic issues of our time analysed from a European viewpoint. Indispensable reading!"

Polly Toynbee

Columnist for The Guardian

Thank you very much for your interest! Now please check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

Powered by ConvertKit

Macron: chastened but persistent

Macron’s starting point is ‘Brexit’, which he sees as both an expression of Europe’s weakness—specifically that it ‘has failed to respond to its peoples’ needs for protection from the major shocks of the modern world’—and an illustration that nationalist populism is a dangerous trap, peddled by the ignorant and untrustworthy. The EU needs to meet people’s needs for ‘protection’ if citizens are not to abandon Europe and fall under the spell of nationalist pied-pipers.

The right response, he argues, is to emphasise where Europe already does effectively enhance individual member states’ policy space and to reform Europe’s capacity to act. He proposes that reform should occur in three broad areas, under the nebulous titles of freedom, protection and progress, giving in each case illustrative examples:—

  • Freedom: a European agency to protect democracy from foreign intervention, bans on foreign funding of political parties and European rules against hate speech and other internet-based abuse.
  • Protection: strengthening border protection and the common asylum system, a defence treaty with a mutual-defence clause and higher spending and an emphasis on fair (rather than ‘free’) trade and competition, with tighter controls over foreign enterprises and a more strategic industrial policy.
  • Progress: a continent-wide ‘social shield’ (presumably minimum standards), a minimum-wage norm, and a greater push on climate change, for example with a European climate bank.

As a mechanism to push for change he urges a Conference for Europe, which appears to follow the same philosophy as his grand débat in France. He ends with a nod to a multi-speed Europe as an alternative to stasis and, closing his rhetorical circle, a belief that such a Europe will be one which the Brits will wish to remain members of or to rejoin.

Macron has toned down the lyrical volume compared with his 2017 Sorbonne speech on Europe. The emphasis is on identifying areas where an institutionalised European approach offers advantages to member states in delivering solutions which meet citizens’ demands, thus making them less discontented with their national governments and with the EU. The form that this institutionalisation might take is often left open and is likely to vary from policy field to policy field.

Watch the latest Social Europe Video Podcast

What is not mentioned is also important: economic-policy co-ordination and eurozone reform—a major preoccupation of the past few years—has been dropped. Clearly Macron has concluded he is on a hiding to nothing here. Equally ‘scary’ subjects, such as the size of the EU budget and reform of the EU institutions, are also left out.

This lends Macron’s proposals a certain superficiality, even if the desired direction of travel is clearly stated. It is hard to imagine how, in unblocking progress, discursive exercises involving citizens can substitute for reducing the veto points in EU decision-making. This, in turn, means some combination of reducing the size of majorities needed to agree on EU-wide legislation and enabling greater resort to multi-speed initiatives.

AKK: icebergs ahead

AKK’s response, entitled ‘Getting Europe right’, came swiftly and is moderately detailed. There is an initial overlap of language and purpose with the declaration by the French president: Europe’s successes need to be recognised but it needs to enhance its capacity for collective action.

There is also—on the surface—a degree of thematic overlap. Some of the priorities mentioned by AKK echo those of Macron: fighting tax evasion, strengthening border control and defence capabilities (peppered with the off-the-wall example of building a European aircraft carrier) and support for technology and innovation, notably in the area of climate change. She also avoids eurozone economic governance.

Beneath the superficial harmony, however, lie four icebergs. The first is AKK’s repeated emphasis on subsidiarity and intergovernmentalism and the classic ordoliberal theme of equating political responsibility and liability. This approach is fundamentally at odds with Macron’s vision, which is incrementally federalist.

Related to this, secondly, AKK emphasises the need to respect countries’ idiosyncrasies, explicitly mentioning central and eastern Europe. In the short term, this implies tacit support for countries which Macron has portrayed as having a fundamentally different and regressive vision of Europe and, in the longer run, a view that integration should proceed at the speed of the most reluctant—thus a rejection of Macron’s idea of coalitions of the willing forging ahead.

Thirdly, she not only accepts, as Macron does, that populists air economic grievances which need to be taken seriously but plays to Islamophobic fears, blaming immigration primarily for increasing social heterogeneity, while pushing populist talking points such as the tax treatment of EU officials.

Finally, she waves—seemingly gratuitously—three red rags at the French bull, calling into question the French permanent seat on the UN Security Council, the status of Strasbourg as a seat of the European Parliament and the scale of agricultural subsidies. It is not that these proposals have no merit, but the casual way they are introduced, without any indication that this could involve a German quid pro quo, must reinforce concerns  in France, and elsewhere, about the overweening power—not to say arrogance—of the EU’s largest member.

Very different visions

It seems that, beyond some hazy common ground, the French president and Germany’s likely next leader hold very different visions of the right direction of travel for Europe. On the one hand, building common institutions, strengthening the capacity for common decisions and permitting enhanced co-operation by integration-friendly coalitions, all with the aim of taking the wind out of the populists’ sails; on the other, a doubling down on the virtues of intergovernmental co-operation, subsidiarity, respect for national differences and at least partial acceptance of the cultural and identity-related arguments of nationalist populists.

It is election time and AKK is speaking as leader of the CDU. She is concerned to staunch losses to the EU-critical and anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland. If the next German ruling coalition is with the social democrats or the greens, then the government line will certainly be different—not, though, in the not-implausible eventuality of coalition with the market-liberal Free Democratic Party. Still, the huge gap between the two discourses does not bode well for the prospects of reforming Europe in the near term.

Macron had waited for a long-time for a positive response to his earlier initiatives. The 2018 Franco-German Meseberg agreement and subsequent policy steps have been very limited, even if the recent Aachen treaty contained some aspirational language and initiatives. Now, economy-policy issues having been largely dropped, a response from Germany has been forthcoming but, underneath a thin veneer, the language is at best unwelcoming and in places seems gratuitously provocative.

Yet establishing a European public sphere and getting key leaders to agree within it are two different things. The articulation of different visions puts the spotlight back on the European elections and has the advantage of bringing into focus a clear choice for European citizens at the end of May.

In the next European Parliament and Commission, voters can strengthen those forces seeking to strengthen common institutions (maybe accepting a multi-speed approach) and collective problem-solving. Or they can favour those which prioritise intergovernmental mechanisms in which the Council of the EU plays the key rule, defining minimalist solutions for the whole block, while maintaining and even increasing national veto powers.

A European public sphere is a venue for robust debate about the future course of the EU. It will not be created overnight but the exchange between Macron and Kramp-Karrenberger is a step forward.

This article originally appeared on Andrew Watt’s blog.

TwitterFacebookLinkedin
Home ・ Politics ・ Macron and Kramp-Karrenbauer: vive la différence?

Filed Under: Columns & Interviews, Politics

About Andrew Watt

Andrew Watt is head of the department Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK—Institut für Makroökonomie und Konjunkturforschung) in the Hans-Böckler Foundation. He was previously senior researcher at the European Trade Union Institute.

Partner Ads

Most Recent Posts

Access to social protection, for some Ane Fernandez de Aranguiz and Bartłomiej Bednarowicz
Economic growth versus social security—redeeming the EU’s original sin Roberta Ferrara and Valerio Alfonso Bruno
coal Why should just transition be an integral part of the European Green Deal? Béla Galgóczi
Just Transition Fund A Just Transition Fund: one step on a long march Ludovic Voet
climate strike Why we strike again Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer and Angela Valenzuela

Most Popular Posts

election in Poland The parliamentary election in Poland—the future at stake Maria Skóra
radical right Why the radical right is no longer the exclusive domain of older, male voters Caroline Marie Lancaster
digital currencies Mario Draghi and the Germans Peter Bofinger
Manchester Could a progressive phoenix arise from the ashes of the UK’s political meltdown? Paul Mason
populism What’s driving populism? Dani Rodrik

Other Social Europe Publications

For a Europe with a Future
Europe 2025 – A New Agenda
OP 14: Changing the Game: EU Development Policy for Sustainable Equality
Austerity: 12 Myths Exposed
The Crisis of Globalisation

S&D Group Ad

At the beginning of the new EU legislative cycle, this occasional paper by Udo Bullmann (MEP and S&D Group coordinator in the European Parliament’s Development Committee) makes the case for an EU development policy that puts the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a concern for human well-being front and centre. The paper argues that EU development policy must serve to fight inequalities in partner countries to enable successful transformations in the spirit of the SDGs. Weaving a concern for achieving greater equality into the process of EU development policy-making, including through ex-ante assessment tools, is key in this regard.


FREE DOWNLOAD

Social Europe Edition Book

Is an unconditional basic income without means-test or work-test compatible with social justice and individual self-worth? Does it open up the space for an end to demeaning labour and a resurgence of voluntary work and cultural life? Is it affordable? This collection of short but compelling essays, all previously published in Social Europe, allows both proponents and opponents to make their case and is designed to extend this vital discussion to a wider audience.


MORE INFO

Hans Böckler Stiftung Ad

The Blocked Completion of the European Monetary Union

The reform of the euro zone is stuck. Against the background of political blockades, this report examines from a combined economic and political science perspective how the Euro can be prepared for the next crisis. The report first identifies general requirements for the stabilization of economic and monetary union. Next, the report reconstructs the political logic of the euro crisis and shows that the prospects for realizing far-reaching reform proposals aiming at a fiscal union are poor. Subsequently, the report develops a proposal of how, under the given circumstances, the room for maneuver within the existing framework of economic and monetary union can be extended in a pragmatic way in order to strengthen national fiscal policy as an instrument of macroeconomic stabilization.


FREE DOWNLOAD

ETUI Advertisement

Migrant workers in Fortress Europe

The number of legally resident migrants stands at over 22 million, but the number of Europe’s “undocumented” migrants, whose status is precarious and whose rights in many areas are limited as a result, is much harder to determine. These migrants are often forced to tolerate adverse working conditions; since they are discriminated against in the labour market, both male and female migrant workers are pushed into low-skill industries and professions that are more hazardous to health and less well-paid than other jobs, a situation that is justified by racist stereotypes and assumptions. The goal of the HesaMag editorial team in compiling this report was to introduce readers to a number of real-life examples drawn from a variety of EU Member States.


FREE DOWNLOAD

Eurofound Advertisement

Challenges and prospects in the EU: Quality of life and public services

What have been the major developments in quality of life and public services in Europe in recent years? This flagship publication provides a synthesis of the main findings on several key topics, based, in part, on European Quality of Life Survey data. It maps developments and perceptions regarding the following: trust in institutions and social cohesion; access to and quality of health and care services; the impact of digitalisation on social services; access to services for young people; and measures aimed at integrating refugees. While the report highlights many challenges and emerging issues for public services, it also showcases a number of positive experiences with the involvement of client groups in the design of services and take-up of new technologies.


CLICK FOR MORE INFO

About Social Europe

Mission Statement & Editorial Team

Article Submission

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Legal & Privacy

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Thought Leadership

XThis website uses cookies to improve your experience and we assume you are ok with this. Do not use this website if you have objections. Read Our Full Privacy Policy RejectAccept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.

Necessary
Always Enabled

This is an necessary category.

Analytics
Advertisement
Performance
Uncategorized
Save & Accept