[FR] A conversation with Enrico Letta

La Revue des Juristes de Sciences Po: Hello Enrico Letta, what is your view on the crisis currently affecting the EU?

Enrico Letta: It is clear that the Covid-19 crisis is affecting us all and, as such, it is affecting multilateralism and therefore, inevitably, the European Union (EU). This is a very difficult and complicated challenge to overcome, and is one of the major trials that Europe has faced. On the one hand, this crisis comes after four other major crises in the same decade: the financial crisis of 2008-2012, the Islamic terrorism crisis, the refugee crisis and the Brexit crisis. Covid-19 is therefore the fifth. On the other hand, as the EU is a global player, it is affected by the general crisis facing multilateralism. The difficulty and complexity of the challenge stem precisely from the fact that the EU is a multilateral forum in a global environment in which this mode of organising inter-state relations is in crisis.

RJSP: Don’t these various tensions have a common denominator: the absence of European sovereignty?

E.L: Yes, I agree that European sovereignty could be the right solution. I support this idea because all these issues of ‘take back control’, which have been reinforced in the United Kingdom by Brexit and in the United States, stem from a feeling of loss of control over our societies. However, this feeling does not come from Europe but from digital technology, globalisation and hyperconnectivity, which are causing difficulties for states. European sovereignty would therefore be a means for states to ‘take control’, even if this control is shared.

RJSP: This is a somewhat counter-current view, as we remember Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage saying that only national sovereignty would allow us to regain control.

E.L: I think this is a mistake linked to a failure to take into account the changing nature of the world. Between 1950 and 2050, in the space of a century, the most significant change in the history of our world will occur, with the global population increasing from 2.5 to 10 billion people, a fourfold increase. However, as the European population will remain largely unchanged, its share of the global population will decrease from 1/5^th to 1/20^th. However, the idea that sovereignty must be maintained at the national level does not take this fundamental change into account. For example, the United Kingdom, France and Italy were among the world’s major countries, but by 2050 they will be only medium-sized countries. Faced with this radical change, the only way to preserve influence throughout the world is to unite so that Europe can occupy the place that European countries once held alone.

RJSP: Precisely, when we talk about being together, we see that today Europe is torn between this permanent tension between the ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ states. In your opinion, is there not a structural problem with the EU? It is a market-driven construction because it was thought that the union of markets could ultimately lead to an ever closer union between peoples. However, we are now seeing that the opposite is true, with an ever-widening divide between peoples as a result of the market. Shouldn’t the future of the EU involve more politics and less economics?

E.L: Yes, that is precisely what is currently under discussion. Unlike the 2008-2012 crisis, where the responses were mainly financial in nature, the current crisis requires a response that is both financial and social, with an emphasis on the real economy. The recovery fund and loans from the EIB are part of the real economy component, while the Sure plan and the ESM on health are part of the social component. This approach is truly innovative; never before has this type of response been provided. Crises often drive change, and I believe that if this approach is successfully implemented, it will pave the way for the Europe of tomorrow: a Europe that is not only financial, but also economic and social. Of course, the debate is not over and divisions remain, but these divisions show that we are at the heart of the problem and that this issue is crucial for the future of Europe.

RJSP: Speaking of divisions, do you think the UK’s departure from the EU-28 could be an opportunity?

E.L: Frankly, looking at the current situation, I think the main obstacle to a social Europe and a Europe that intervenes in the real economy, i.e. in growth, has always been the UK, which has refused to move in that direction. The fact that the current debate is taking place only three months after the UK’s departure is therefore no coincidence. In my view, the British departure is more positive than negative for Europe because if they had stayed, they would have strengthened the Dutch position, which is now in the minority. In this respect, their departure has therefore changed the situation. Of course, in terms of Europe’s overall power, the departure of the United Kingdom is regrettable, but in my opinion, the EU can now move forward much more quickly.

RJSP: When you talk about the minority opposition of the Dutch, do you consider that Germany has sided with Italy and France (which want more Europe, debt mutualisation, etc.)? How do you explain the change in position of the Germans, who were rather against the tide?

E.L: There are several explanations. The first is that this crisis is existential for the European economy. Europe’s largest economic power knows that there is no decapping: a country cannot be happy at the centre of an unhappy continent. With a single market, sharing is essential, and this is precisely one of the key lessons learned from the 2008 crisis. Germany could certainly have supported some of the points put forward by the Netherlands, but it could not agree with their position as a whole because it was too extreme.

Then there is another, perhaps more important and tactical reason, which is the decision of the Karlsruhe Court handed down some twenty days ago. This ruling is beyond all reason (against the EU, against Brussels, against the CJEU, against the ECB) and constitutes a mixture of nationalist animosity that is both incomprehensible and indefensible. However, having been applauded by the Polish and Hungarian prime ministers, this ruling was a serious blow to Germany, like an own goal. This forced Merkel to change her approach and now support a much broader European leadership.

RJSP: Precisely, an important point is the place of citizens in this European construction. We talk about Poland and Hungary, and we see that illiberal leaders believe that the EU is hindering the development of their states. Today, there is a crisis of mistrust, both nationally and internationally. How can citizens be reconciled with the EU?

E.L: I think reconciliation can be achieved through the response to this crisis. If it is effective, people will realise that without Europe, we are going nowhere. In this regard, I have a very concrete proposal: Europe is putting hundreds of billions of euros on the table. This is a sum that is incomparable to the responses to previous crises. I am thinking, among other things, of the Juncker plan, which involved €300 to €700 billion but which in reality amounted to €30 to €50 billion, with the rest coming from leverage. My proposal is not to give this money to the Member States, leaving it up to them to redistribute it, but rather for the EU to distribute these funds directly. This would avoid the classic scapegoating and put an end to the discourse of a Europe of bureaucrats and “stingy people”, which unfortunately still resonates in Lithuania, France, Italy and Ireland. This type of discourse is precisely what is eroding citizens’ confidence in the EU. Direct redistribution of the money would therefore enable citizens to realise the concrete help that the EU provides them with.

RJSP: So it would ultimately be a form of helicopter money, European style?

E.L: Yes, but with conditions, such as compliance with formal requirements and an understanding that this is not ‘free money’. The money must be directed towards the unemployed and businesses. And it is essential that citizens realise that it is not their country offering them this aid, but Europe.

RJSP: Do you think that the post-COVID-19 period will bring about a revision of the EU’s founding treaties or, on the contrary, will it be business as usual, i.e. finding alternative ways of revision, as was the case with the debt crisis? Could this be a real opportunity?

E.L: In my opinion, the Conference on the Future of Europe is a real opportunity to be seized. This French proposal, identified as one of the highlights of this European legislative period, should have started on 9 May and ended at the end of the French Presidency of the EU in 2022. It has now been postponed, and it is essential, even fundamental, that it should not fall victim to this health crisis. That is why I hope it will be relaunched as soon as possible so that we can achieve results, particularly with regard to its very important institutional aspect.

RJSP: Do you believe that the future of the EU also depends on sustainable development and the environment? Is this a future focus for the EU?

E.L: This is the other major issue of this legislative term, which has been designated a ‘flagship’ by Ursula von der Leyen. The risk is that this issue will be the second victim of Covid-19, which would obviously be a disaster. However, the words of the President of the European Commission give us confidence and, as such, it is important that the European budget be more substantial so that adequate responses can be provided. As Europeans, we have a mission in today’s and tomorrow’s world, and we must fulfil it.

RJSP: Some legal scholars have explained that EU Member States have copied each other in their response to the Covid-19 crisis. How do you compare the Italian and French responses? Do you see any differences or similarities?

E.L: I think there is more of a convergence between the French, Spanish and Italian responses. Admittedly, there are a few minor differences linked to geographical particularities. For example, in Italy, the response was made more difficult by the existence of two Italies: Lombardy, the global epicentre of the epidemic along with New York City, and the rest of Italy, which was very little affected. The complexity therefore lay in how to deal with these two different situations. The decision was made to apply the rules in force in Lombardy to the rest of the country, even though there was probably no reason to apply such strict rules to the whole territory. It was an unprecedented, new situation, and we helped each other as we are doing today with the lifting of lockdown restrictions. And the lessons learned can also be useful to other countries.

RJSP: You observed a very clear movement of mistrust towards the EU within Italy. Is this still true today or, on the contrary, is there a realisation that the EU is ultimately the only solution to the crisis?

E.L: There are two sentiments. On the one hand, there is a feeling of anger and mistrust towards the EU, but on the other, there is a feeling that only Europe is capable of intervening because China, Russia and the United States are not alternatives. The anger is mainly linked to previous crises, such as the refugee crisis, where there was a lack of solidarity, thus creating a climate of mistrust. At this stage, we need to see how the responses will be received. I hope that if the responses are properly implemented, things will improve.

RJSP: You mentioned China and the United States. As for the EU, often described as a colossus with feet of clay, the question arises as to its place in the world. Given the very strong tensions between the Americans and the Chinese, what should be the EU’s place in this kind of ‘new Cold War’, to paraphrase the Chinese Foreign Minister?

E.L: I think Europe must be united to avoid a new Cold War, to become the third power alongside the US and China, and finally, to influence tomorrow’s world on the main contemporary issues.

European values must flourish in relation to the climate challenge and what I call ‘technological humanism’, i.e. putting people at the centre rather than the market, as in the United States, or the state, as in China. On all issues related to personal data protection and many other topics, people must be at the centre. It is essential to defend this different approach, and thanks to Europe, this approach can flourish. The need for a united Europe is therefore essential in my view.

RJSP: Precisely, is this geostrategic commission desired by the new President a step in the right direction, with a final reshuffle of the commissioners’ portfolios around the EU’s future and pressing issues? And perhaps this is the first step towards a Europe of defence?

E.L: A Europe of defence is still a long way off, but I agree with this reorganisation of the Commission. In reality, Europe must have the ambition to become a power that can speak with one voice to interlocutors such as the United States or China.

RJSP: So you think a Europe of defence is unlikely or even utopian?

E.L: I think it’s quite a long way off because a European defence policy would require the pooling of technical, military and diplomatic resources, which seems rather unrealistic to me.

RJSP: Do you think it will never happen?

E.L: I think it will happen one day, but it will probably take a crisis to bring it about. Although I hope that a military crisis does not occur, we can see how economic crises are essential to advancing Europe’s economy. I therefore fear that only a military crisis – or an event with a comparable impact – could advance a European defence policy.

RJSP: Furthermore, given the current hot topics, what would a European health policy look like?

E.L: A Europe of health would be a single market for supplies and health systems, but also a Europe of research. The latter dimension requires significant investment; united, Europe will be able to be more incisive than other countries. Then there are the complex but important issues of prevention and benchmarking.

RJSP: You tweeted that the upcoming US election was a crucial moment for the EU. How do you explain the United States’ return to isolationism?

E.L: There are two phenomena at play here. Trump has certainly accelerated this trend towards isolationism, but Americans were already distrustful of globalisation because it had enabled China to grow into a superpower, causing the United States to lose its status as the sole superpower. Both of these aspects are important. In this regard, I imagine that Biden would chart a different course and that the US elections could therefore be a game changer.

RJSP: In conclusion, what is your wish for the future of the EU?

E.L: That Europe becomes a powerhouse of values and is capable of leadership on the world stage. Tomorrow’s world needs this kind of governance based on values, on the centrality of the individual, the environment and the protection of nature. Only Europe is in a position to give this type of leadership a global impact.