democracy within the EU, the effects of the free market policy of the EU, and the
“eurocrisis” and its proposed solutions are adduced as reasons against (more)
European integration.
10.6.8 Sovereignty and the Debt Crisis
We have seen that in the early years of European integration, the CJEU took several
important steps towards positioning the EU (actually its predecessor, the EEC) as a
supranational entity, able to make law that binds the Member States.
There have also been developments in the other direction. The most obvious one
is the rise of the European Council, the collection of Heads of State of the EU
Members, as an institution of the EU. It is becoming the institution where the main
developments of the EU are negotiated. It is, for instance, the European Council
that proposes to the EP a candidate for the position of president of the Commission.
Since decisions in the European Council are taken unanimously, this means that all
Member States practically have a vetoing right concerning all major decisions on
the further development of the EU.
Another illustration of the important role of the European Council is the frequent
meetings of this Council on the debt crisis. During one of these meetings, decisions
were taken about the use of an emergency fund to support EU Member States with
financial difficulties. There should be European (instead of national) supervision of
the banks. Indeed, the possibility was contemplated that steps be taken towards a
closer fiscal union. Obviously, the latter two measures would involve major
concessions concerning the sovereignty of the Member States.
The debt crisis and proposals for solving it illustrate part of what is happening in
Europe. In order to obtain peace and prosperity, European countries strive for an
internal market. In order to remove obstacles for this market, it was deemed
desirable to introduce a common currency, the euro. This is an example of how
economic integration spills over into financial integration. The existence of the euro
as a common currency may not have been the direct cause of the crisis, but it
withheld at least some countries from taking a relatively easy way out in the form of
devaluating their national currencies. In order to maintain the euro as a common
currency, special measures turned out to be necessary, measures that once again
undermine the sovereignty of the Member States of the EU. In theory, all Member
States can veto these measures because decision-making about them takes place in
the European Council where all Member States have a vetoing right. However, if an
emergency becomes very serious, as is the case with the crisis, the right to veto
important decisions is more theoretical than practical. The crisis and the way it is
presently handled—with difficult negotiations, loss of time, but finally ending up in
more integration and less sovereignty—show how Europe will continue to develop,
unless...
...Unless it breaks up. There is no guarantee that the gradual process in which
Europe step by step approaches the federal structure that was still unattainable after
the Second World War will continue. The rise of euroskepticism makes this
238 J. Hage