Magazine / Politics / Separatism / Interview | 06/08/2007

"A Europe with the regions"

Nicolas Levrat is the director of the Institute of European Studies at the University of Geneva. He spoke with euro|topics about the triangle of Europe, the nation states and the regions.

The European Committee of the Regions has more than 250 members, among them, members as diverse as Guadeloupe, Tirol and 14 international organisations like the "Assembly of European Fruit and Vegetable Growing and Horticultural Regions." What defines a region in Europe?

Nicolas Levrat

That is not clear. Regions don't have a clear legal status in the EU. In some cases they are considered part of the administration of the state, in some cases they are considered private associations or private economic entities. Some play an important role in their country, but that importance is not expressed in their status.

Could you imagine a European Union made up of regions and not of nation states?

A Europe of the Regions wouldn't work. We see that the Committee of the Regions is quite inefficient. We are talking about 200 or 300 entities trying to make decisions. Imagine the procedures necessary to reach a qualifying majority in a decision making body with 300 members! It's not like your average parliament, it would be much more difficult as is already the case in the present European council with 27 members.

But you can't deny that there the separatist sentiment is gaining strength.

That is right, and there are some developments in Europe that enhance these sentiments. Take the situation in Kosovo. A Basque leader will tell you that Kosovo and the Basque region are basically in the same situation. If the Balkan disintegrates and everyone becomes a member of the EU, why can't the Basques separate from Spain and become a member of their own?

What part does the European Union play in these developments?

The influence of the EU is quite balanced. On the one hand, the EU exerts a strong integrationist force, on the other hand it sets examples for successful secessions. First there is not much interest in becoming a fully independent state in Europe because in the EU nobody is fully independent anymore. But in this fixed structure, the regions have gained more power. In the Maastricht treaty of 1992, there was a small but very important change regarding the composition of the Council of the European Union. Before Maastricht the council had to consist of members of the respective national governments. Now everyone at a ministerial level can speak for the whole country.

Did this small change really stifle separatist thoughts?

No, but the whole political discussion about the regions and their influence was pushed back to the national sphere. It's on the national level now where some means of cooperation between the federal or national government and the regions have been established. In Germany this mechanism is institutionalised in the Bundesrat, and even more centralised countries like Italy or Spain had to develop some cooperation mechanisms within the state. Until the 2004 enlargement, the EU was sending a clear signal to the regions. They couldn't become members of the Union but they could play a stronger role in the national sphere. Channelling the influence of strong regions into national representations was a smart move that reinforced the state, not primarily as a nation state, but as a state in all its diversity including regional powers. Now, as some have said, it's not a Europe of the regions but a Europe with the regions.

You mentioned that the EU also strengthens separatist movements.

There is a phenomenon that has been totally underestimated. Of the eight new member states that joined the EU in 2004, six had been some kind of region 15 years earlier, not states. That changes a great deal for the separatist sentiment in Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders and so on. It's very difficult to explain to a regional leader that if he disagrees with EU policy, he first has to address the national government in Madrid or London while in Vilnius or Slovenia, they can veto any EU decision because they are member states. Scotland or Catalonia are in command of an economic and political power much greater than, for example Slovenia, but on the European level they are much weaker. This is where we have created a problem.

What should be done? Would giving more power to the regions be a solution? In Scotland that seems to have strengthened the separatist Scottish National Party (SNP) which won the recent election.

That is mostly an issue of the dynamics of party politics. As a separatist party, the SNP has to go on claiming more and more rights for Scotland. They can't stop because that is their defining element. But that doesn't mean that the majority or the population is thinking in the same direction. You see that in Canada with the Parti Quebecois., they lost the two referenda over independence.

But it was close, especially the second referendum in 1995.

In Canada there was an interesting legal question about whether the people of Quebec are allowed to separate. After much consultation, the Supreme Court said no. But if they did it, the judges added, the federal government would have the obligation to negotiate with Quebec in order to realise its departure from the nation. So they have no right to do it but if they do it, it's done. You can't explain sovereignty. There is a blind spot in political theory about the birth of a political entity. It's a de facto situation.

So could that happen in the EU too?

Well, there is one legal element that has to be taken into account. For any state to become a member of the EU, you need the unanimous vote of existing member states. This will be the topic of debate in Belgium for the next months and years. The incoming Belgian prime minister Yves Leterme is in favour of an independent Flanders. Economically that could make sense. But it is not so easy. If Flanders becomes independent the rest of Belgium will not disappear and will remain a member of the EU. And this remnant Belgium will never let an independent Flanders join the EU. The same reasoning would apply for Catalonia and Scotland. They all will be confronted with a veto from their former state.

Catalonia, Northern Italy, Flanders: It's mostly the rich regions that want to get independent. Is it all a matter of economics?

Mostly. There is some romantic in independence - being ready to fight and possibly risk everything. But in reality most people are interested in their material quality of life. Contrary to what is commonly said - that the rise of regionalism is linked to the funding structure and federal EU policy - the facts suggest that it is not the regions that are heavily subsidized by the EU that are pushing for independence but rather the rich regions.

Will they succeed?

There will be much discussions about enhancing the mechanisms of power sharing between regional and national governments. If they fail, it may be like some regional leaders told me: "We are expecting five years of civil war and after that, perhaps ten years of purgatory. Then, after some waiting, we will become full member states." These are not very comforting prospects. So I hope that these issues will be solved within the existing structures.

Christoph Mayerl

Born in 1976, Christoph Mayerl studied journalism, philosophy and politics in Eichstätt, Bavaria. He works as a free-lance journalist in Berlin.
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » EU Policy, » Europe
More from the press review on the subject » EU Policy, » Europe