My reason to fear these aims now publicly admitted by Macron is that the whole idea of having an EU for size, the federal idea that took over since Maastricht, is to be big enough to play superpower, is only necessary for Empire. If one happens, the other will happen I believe.
I think that the amount of federal ideas have never been that big.
At least not from the people bearing responsibilities as PM of most of the member countries.
The general attitude is to grow together, in both meanings of growing together. Whatever institutions needed... to follow the demand or the bare necessities from external changes.
Every time someone comes with federal ideas... not we as people... but politicians in positions of some or more power and the front persons of certain interests and sets of convictions abstrahised to party levels..
everytime someone on the European stage comes with more pan-European ideas... I asked myself why ? What is at stake.. what could be gained ? And mostly that gives an answer not that much related with the interests of all European people, and... and most members !
And this is not so much from the civil servants in Brussels. Ofc they are somewhat biased to more EU, as every person in a central administration has that bias to some degree. Whether in the Capital of a country or the HQ staff a a big company. It's the normal centralising gravity bias. You always have to actively repress that or face avoidable waste.
Every employee in the central admin can tell stories where regional admins were not enough coordinated by them. Every employee in a regional admin can tell stories on the central admin screwing something up.
The more centralised a country admin is, the more in the central Capital (often more the case in former empires), the more such an admin encourages imperial thinking in politicians.
And I guess... the more corruption there is in the culture, the more a central admin will prefer that corruption to happen at central levels instead of regional levels (and probably in informal cultures reducing the total amount of corruption at the same time).
If you ask for example McKinsey to run an analysis on one of your ministrial departments in that respect, or on a multinational admin or support, you get your standard and expensive report back incl a lot of benchmarking on relevant aspects. The more expensive, the more you get.
Measuring cost and added values when expressable in money and perception relatively easy. Measuring performances (like intended second, third order effects on others) more difficult. That's were benchmarks help and agregated subjective opinions.
Look at some major steps in the EU.
For example the Euro. The ideas were always there, the currency stable exchange rate system in 1972 (as reaction on the Bretton Woods collapse), the EMS & ECU formally there in 1979 (European Monetary System & European Currency Unit). De Gaulle determined to have a counter against the usurping and exorbitant privilege of the US Dollar.
But it was not really needed to have 1 currency. Most of the advantages where there from the stable currency system refined into the EMS.
But it was the fall of the wall in 1989 that caused the Euro.
Kohl wanted to absorb East-Germany and was prepared to pay any price for that. Mitterand did not like Germany becoming A. much bigger and B. no longer a peripheral country but the most centerred country. Thatcher and Gorbatsjov concerned as well. The peace deal was to further bind Germany into the EU, by having them sacrifice their national pride, their Deutschmark.
And so was decided. The date some years ahead in 2000 to prepare the alligning.
Not something pan-European, but still the oldest raison détre for the EU. Binding France and Germany.
And what Mitterand also forced was more consistency in France regarding French monetary policy. In 1983 France was put for the choice to either leave the EMS or "improve". (devaluation Franc 1969-1983 50%)
It was at that moment also not intended that so many countries would join the Euro. In fact just France and Germany would be enough. The only countries really qualifying in all terms were Luxumbourg, the Netherlands and some other dots. The issue that some countries did not match the kind of economy (level, complexity, productivity level and growth, etc), the issue that some countries did not match the financial culture (needing continuous devaluation), was recognised from the start.
Belgium and Italy did not qualify. None of the South European countries did qualify.
But many countries feared missing the boat... and wanted to join at all cost... and France sought support from weaker countries to protect its own more weak financial position.
The compromises were made (eyes were closed with politics) and Belgium and Italy were allowed.
And when Greece pressed to join, they were allowed in a catch on procedure as well. But....... but that was before the hidden national debt was known. With the officially reported debt Greece was similar to Belgium and Italy. And Greece determined to join, told nobody.
=> what was intended as a Franco-German currency to "control" Germany after the unification completely derailed because all those other countries were afraid to miss the boat, to end up as second rank members. And joined much faster than would be prudent, or joined where they should not have joined for at least 2-5 decades later.
Just the normal random flock of sheep behaviour and the arrogance of politicians believing in their makeability powers, ignoring specialists advicing against it, because "somehow"...
Nothing imperial in my view about these events as such.
Back to Macron
Austria has distanced itself also from the Renaissance letter, using the word "utopian".
https://www.politico.eu/article/sebastian-kurz-emmanuel-macron-ideas-for-europe-are-utopian/
