Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Scénarios européens : rétrospective et prospective


Author Info

  • Pierre-Alain Muet
Registered author(s):


    [eng] For the last fifty years, the history of European integration has witnessed two opposing methods: the gradual one based on « spillover effects » from economic to political integration, initiated by Jean Monnet, which allowed for and developed the European Community; and the political initiatives — all of which have failed — starting with the federalist ambitions of the Hague Congress, just after the war, up to the different constitutional projects elaborated by the European Parliament. Meanwhile, the political difficulties which surfaced with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the eventual enlargement of a Community — initially planned for six countries — to an entire continent, and the institutional complexity of an integration process without historical precedent, show that European integration can hardly continue without embracing the political choices so often avoided. How can one adapt the institutions inherited from successive layers of integration, wavering between contradictory political aims, to the challenges which appear at the end of this century : the recomposition of the continent after the break-up of the Soviet Block ; the enlargement of the Union to some thirty countries; Monetary Union, necessarily limited to only a few countries at first... With little doubt, never has the European agenda appeared to be so contradictory. The architecture in pillars of the Maastricht Treaty illustrates this choice, which was never clear-cut, between a confederation of nation states which characterises the intergovernmental approach and the federalist one, which was the choice of the founders, and which is implicit in Economic and Monetary Union. Will the intergovernmental conference, which opened in March, on reforming the institutions, bring any solutions if the fundamental question, « What Europe do we want ? », remains omitted because everyone well knows that the answer profoundly divides the states and the citizens ? The thesis advocated in this article is that these differences should be recognized in order to save the process of European integration. A Europe with variable geometry, or, more precisely, a Europe with different political wishes, is in fact the only outcome allowing for the pursuit of an integration process which conditions the economic survival of our continent. [fre] L'histoire de cinquante ans de construction européenne oppose la méthode des petits pas ou de l'engrenage, initiée par Jean Monnet, qui permit que s'enclenche et se développe l'intégration européenne, aux initiatives politiques qui ont toutes échoué, depuis les ambitions fédéralistes du congrès de la Haye dans l'immédiat après-guerre, jusqu'aux différents projets de constitution élaborés par le Parlement européen, en passant par la Communauté européenne de défense au milieu des années cinquante. Pourtant les difficultés politiques surgies à l'occasion de la ratification du traité de Maastricht, l'élargissement à terme d'une Communauté initialement prévue pour six pays à l'ensemble du continent, et la complexité institutionnelle à laquelle a abouti une expérience d'intégration sans précédent dans l'histoire montrent que la construction européenne ne pourra sans doute pas se poursuivre sans que soient abordés les choix politiques si souvent esquivés. Comment adapter des institutions héritées de couches successives d'intégration oscillant entre des volontés politiques contradictoires, aux défis qui s'accumulent en cette fin de siècle : recomposition du continent après l'éclatement du bloc soviétique, élargissement de l'Union à une trentaine de pays, Union monétaire nécessairement restreinte dans une première phase... Jamais sans doute les échéances européennes ne semblent avoir été aussi contradictoires. L'architecture en piliers du traité de Maastricht illustre ce choix jamais tranché entre une confédération d'Etats nations que caractérise la démarche intergouvemementale, et l'approche fédérale qui était celle des fondateurs et que l'on retrouve implicitement dans l'Union économique et monétaire. La conférence intergouvernementale sur la réforme des institutions qui s'est ouverte en mars apportera-t-elle une solution à ces problèmes si la question fondamentale « Quelle Europe voulons-nous ? » reste omise parce que chacun sait bien qu'aujourd'hui la réponse divise profondément les Etats et les citoyens. La thèse défendue dans cet article est que ces divergences doivent être reconnues pour sauvegarder le processus d'intégration européenne. L'Europe à géométrie variable, ou plus exactement l'Europe à volontés politiques différenciées, qui en est la conséquence est la seule issue qui permette de poursuivre un processus d'intégration qui conditionne la survie économique de notre continent.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Programme National Persée in its journal Revue de l'OFCE.

    Volume (Year): 58 (1996)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 43-65

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:prs:rvofce:ofce_0751-6614_1996_num_58_1_1429

    Note: DOI:10.3406/ofce.1996.1429
    Contact details of provider:
    Web page:

    Related research



    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.



    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:rvofce:ofce_0751-6614_1996_num_58_1_1429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Equipe PERSEE).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.