SPIEGEL Interview with Ex-German High Court Justice: 'It Is a Mistake To Pursue a United States of Europe'

• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

SPIEGEL: Is Karlsruhe losing power?

Di Fabio: Not in general and not in the sense of a zero-sum game. With the help of European integration the German Constitutional Court has in some ways become even more influential because its legal ideas now extend beyond borders. What's more, in certain constellations Karlsruhe lays claim to the last word, for example, when it comes to monitoring Europe's overstepping of competencies. This, I believe, is something that the European Court of Justice has also come to accept.

SPIEGEL: The president of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg nonetheless recently said that he's not happy to hear that Karlsruhe wants to have the last word.

Di Fabio: I'm also unhappy to hear certain things, but I accept them.

SPIEGEL: How long can this really work, this coexistence of authorities to adjudicate in Europe?

Di Fabio: As long as we don't have a United States of Europe, we will continue to have a polity that has a certain network character.

SPIEGEL: Now, there are also plans in Berlin to take the last word away from the court in Karlsruhe, for instance by introducing an amendment to the Basic Law that would remove the judges' authority on issues of European integration.

Di Fabio: That is a phoney debate. Indeed, there is no reason for such considerations. What the German government has now set in motion and agreed upon with its European partners should make such steps hardly necessary.

SPIEGEL: What if Berlin wanted to avoid future conflicts with Karlsruhe?

Di Fabio: I don't think anyone wants to remove this power of review from the Constitutional Court. It is part of the identity of a highly successful republic. Incidentally, certain aspects such as the principles of democracy and the rule of law are protected by the Basic Law's guarantee of perpetuity and are thus immutable.

SPIEGEL: Since the Basic Law according to the Karlsruhe interpretation may make it difficult to realize European unity, Berlin is already assessing plans to have the people vote on a new, Europe-friendly constitution.

Di Fabio: The people are, of course, free to abandon the Basic Law. All peoples are free to say that they no longer want to be independent -- that they would like to be a member state in a sovereign United States of Europe.

SPIEGEL: What would have to happen to pave the way for this decision by the public?

Di Fabio: We are talking here about an entirely theoretical question.

SPIEGEL: Even your president recently broached this topic in an interview.

Di Fabio: But only as something on the limit of the imaginable. One reason why this issue is totally theoretical is that there is a lack of practical will to establish such a political entity.

SPIEGEL: Why then are members of the German government considering replacing the Basic Law?

Di Fabio: Certainly not to clear the way for the next integration steps by removing the Constitutional Court as a veto player.

SPIEGEL: For which additional integration steps would a veto be expected from your colleagues?

Di Fabio: The court has already clarified where there is a sticking point. If financial guarantees were to become colossal or Germany were to be made liable against its will, then the judges would perhaps say: This can no longer conceivably be regarded as covered by the principal of democracy.

SPIEGEL: A transfer union wouldn't generally violate the Basic Law?

Di Fabio: The EU has always had transfer characteristics in the agricultural sector. It depends on what the national parliaments can responsibly support with their own individual decisions. If Germany subjects itself to a mechanism whereby European and intergovernmental organs have access to revenues and expenditures that have an effect on the budget, with no right of veto by the Bundestag, then we have a democratic problem.

SPIEGEL: Would euro bonds be such a mechanism?

Di Fabio: In principle, yes, they probably would. But the extent to which this would be a democratically sound move by the Bundestag depends on the concrete form.

SPIEGEL: We have nation-state constitutions as a binding framework for European policy and to influence global financial markets. Can something like this continue to work?

Di Fabio: Just imagine that all member states had largely fulfilled the stability criteria, made their economies competitive and conceptually worked together much better: Would the EU have any problems at all today? An open, integrated state, which nonetheless remains sovereign and functioning, is an indispensable building block, even in an increasingly integrated Europe.

SPIEGEL: In such a union of states is it even possible to organize a satisfactory democratic legitimization?

Di Fabio: Yes, when both levels continue to function. This has been the message ever since the Maastricht decision. If the European level is lively, strong and functioning, but the nation-state level also remains functioning and autonomous, then it works.

SPIEGEL: Wouldn't it be easier to form a democratic United States of Europe with separation of powers?

Di Fabio: I think it is a mistake to pursue a United States of Europe model. There is no ideal solution on earth, nor is there one that dates back to the 19th century. The supposed universal remedy of a United States of Europe could cause even greater conflicts than the current union with its many weights and counterweights that allow for a balance.

SPIEGEL: But many of the problems are simply too big for nation-states.

Di Fabio: No state can save the world on its own. This requires effective international treaties. But what are agreements worth without strong, functioning constitutional states? Indeed, we need both notions at the same time. Without functioning states, there is no international order. Nonetheless, the European sovereign debt crisis has shown that the states have to do their homework. Over the long-term you can only act successfully on the international stage if you have things in order at home.

SPIEGEL: So Europe should continue on the same path?

Di Fabio: We can always scoff at the current construction, and it doesn't correspond with our old, clear patterns of order. But it is a security construction. We have come an incredibly long way with this in Europe -- and we have done so peacefully.

• Back
• 1
• | 2

• Part 1: 'It Is a Mistake To Pursue a United States of Europe'
• Part 2: 'No State Can Save the World on Its Own'