Why the EU is becoming more like a Chekhov play

Legal guns that once gathered dust may soon be fired

1. "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be
fired." Anton Chekhov's rule on writing is a good one. The Russian author would have
despaired at the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At 154 pages in its
consolidated version, it is a bit long. The prose lacks punch. More importantly, it is littered
with unused firearms. Powerful weapons gather dust in the EU's legal gun-cabinet.
Article 222 obliges all eu states to pile in and help if a desperate national capital triggers it,
which no one ever has.
National capitals can sue each other in the European Court of Justice, although no one has
tried it properly. Even the outlines of an EU army are there, if the members want it, which so
far they do not.
2. Now, however, European officials are eyeing up the armoury. Hitherto unused, overlooked
or reinterpreted rules provide the legal bedrock for renewed attempts to integrate the bloc in
ways unimaginable a few months ago. Such rules were used to allow the EU to issue €750bn
of collective debt and then hand it over to member
states, with over half of that sum-€390bn—in the form of grants which will not be paid back.
At first glance, this plan grinds against the clear principle that the EU is not liable for the
debts of its national governments. Instead officials pointed to a vaguer article declaring that
the EU has the right to "provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and
carry through its policies".
It is a small foothold for the creation of a de facto federal deficit, which is probably the EU's
biggest constitutional leap since the creation of the euro.
3. Similar ingenuity is afoot when it comes to the powers of EU states to veto legislation they
dislike. At the moment, any national government can block an EU tax policy. Now the
European Commission is pondering a scheme which would bypass individual objections, if a
country's tax policy distorts the single market—a so far unused part of the treaty.
The threat is clear: if a country's tax scheme is so generous that it bends the single market
out of shape, the EU has the right to come and nix it. It is the same story when it comes to
foreign and environmental policy, where one or two
member states dragging their feet can scupper ambitious plans. In both areas, officials are
examining ways of ensuring that a qualified majority of governments can push through
proposals, even if a minority objects. "It would be better to adopt a strong and substantial
position by a majority rather than unanimously adopting a weak position with little
substance," argued Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign-policy chief, in a recent interview.
4. Backdoor integration is in vogue. The thought of the wholesale overhaul of the EU's
treaties makes diplomats nauseous. Changing the union's legal order would require a wave
of referendums across Europe, which have tended not to end well from the EU's perspective.
For a union that rewrote its constitutional rule book every few years during the 1990s and
2000s, this is a problem, particularly as the current one—the Lisbon Treaty-is showing its
age. Since it came into force in 2009, a euro crisis has been and gone, a migration crisis
flared and a member state has left the union. Rather than rip it up and start again, EU
officials are following Chekhov's advice and using the legal weapons already lying about. 5.
The strategy has been successful elsewhere. America provides the closest analogy.
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the federal government's right to regulate commerce
"with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" was used to
suck power up to the national level. It settled law for everything from the humdrum (regulating
waterways) to the transformational (civil rights). In the EU the single market plays a similar
role to the "commerce clause" of the American constitution, giving EU institutions the right to
muscle into almost any area they please under the guise of protecting the union's trading
rules. The single
market drags EU members closer together, whether they appreciate it or not.
Sneaky treaty
6. Yet integration by stealth has its drawbacks. It can disconcert citizens. During the
euro-zone crisis, German and Dutch voters and others across northern Europe-were
perplexed and irked when the clauses in the EU's treaties that supposedly banned bail-outs
turned out to do no such thing. The €750bn covid-19 scheme is justified as an extraordinary,
temporary measure. Yet temporary schemes can become permanent fixtures, as anyone
who has visited the Eiffel Tower can see. Nor are such tactics guaranteed to succeed legally.
Whereas the European Court of Justice has been an engine of integration, it has few qualms
about slapping down the commission if it shows too much legal ingenuity.
Attempts by the commission to use state-aid rules-which ban unfair subsidies to local
business—to crack down on the light-touch tax regimes of countries such as Ireland and the
Netherlands, have been thrown out. Guns sometimes backfire.
7. Limiting the right of member states to veto sweeping plans may speed up integration.
Efficiency, however, comes at a cost. Unanimity is an ugly process, as
those who sat through the EU's mammoth five-day meeting on its recovery fund can attest,
but it builds consent. Although everyone from mighty Germany to tiny Malta must make
sacrifices, none is forced to capitulate entirely. Increased use of qualified majorities leads to a
more coercive EU, argues Hans Kundnani of Chatham House, a think-tank: countries that
vehemently oppose a policy are compelled to follow it. During the migration crisis, the EU
pushed through refugee quotas on a qualified majority vote. Though well within the rules, it
further soured I an already difficult discussion. Using similar means for topics such as foreign
policy or taxation could lead to a backlash. Firing the gun may make for a better plot, and
perhaps even a more effective EU, but not necessarily a happier one. When wielding a gun,
you should be careful where you point it.
(1037 words)

●​ The prose lacks punch​

This means that the writing is dull or ineffective; it does not have the impact or
strength that would engage or persuade the reader. In the context of the
article, it suggests that the long text of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union is not compelling.
●​ The right to come and nix it​
This refers to the authority or power of the EU to intervene and cancel or reject
a national tax policy if it distorts the single market. The expression conveys a
sense of assertiveness in enforcing EU policy.
●​ Dragging their feet​
This phrase means to delay or procrastinate, often in a reluctant manner. Here,
it implies that some EU member states are holding back or being slow to act
on certain ambitious policy plans.
●​ The wholesale overhaul of the EU's treaties​
This expression refers to a complete and extensive revision or reworking of
 the legal agreements that govern the EU. It conveys the complexity and
potential political difficulties of changing the foundational treaties.
●​ To suck power up​
This means to draw authority or control to a higher level of government or
organization, in this case, from individual states to the EU. It implies a transfer
of power that concentrates it within the EU's institutions.
●​ The right to muscle into almost any area they please​
This suggests the EU’s ability to assert influence or control over various
sectors or policies under the justification of protecting the single market. It
indicates a broad scope of authority that may not always be welcomed by
member states.
●​ Slapping down the commission​
This phrase means to decisively reject or counter the proposals or actions of
the European Commission. It emphasizes the authority of the European Court
of Justice to check the power of the Commission if it exceeds its bounds.
●​ The EU's mammoth five-day meeting​
This describes an exceptionally long and likely complex gathering of EU
officials and member states to discuss significant issues or policies. The term
"mammoth" suggests that it was large in scale and possibly taxing or
overwhelming.
●​ None is forced to capitulate entirely​
This means that while member states may have to compromise on certain
issues, they are not obligated to fully surrender their positions or preferences.
It indicates a balance between consensus and individual state sovereignty in
decision-making processes.

A think-tank refers to an organization or institute that conducts research and

engages in advocacy in various areas, such as public policy, social issues, economic
strategies, and political analysis. In the article, the term "think-tank" is used to
describe Chatham House—a prominent think-tank that focuses on international
affairs and policy research.
●​ How are overlooked EU legal rules compared to a principle from Anton
Chekhov's writing?
●​ Answer: Overlooked EU legal rules are likened to Chekhov's principle
that if a significant element is introduced (like a pistol), it should
eventually be used. The article discusses how the EU has potential legal
tools that have been ignored but are now being considered for action.
●​ Paragraph: 1
●​ What significant action does the EU take that goes against its initial principle
and its justification?
●​ Answer: The EU issued €750 billion of collective debt to member states,
which contradicts the principle that it is not liable for the debts of its
 national governments. This was justified by citing a vaguer article that
allows the EU to provide necessary means to achieve its objectives.
●​ Paragraph: 2
●​ How is the EU managing disagreements from countries about tax rules?
●​ Answer: The European Commission is considering a scheme that would
bypass individual objections to tax policies if they distort the single
market, thereby managing disagreements by threatening to reject overly
generous tax schemes.
●​ Paragraph: 3
●​ What similarity is drawn between the EU's strategy and a historical American
legal approach?
●​ Answer: The EU's strategy is compared to the American federal
government's use of the commerce clause, which allowed it to
centralize power. Both frameworks enable the governing body to
intervene in various areas under the guise of protecting economic
interests.
●​ Paragraph: 5
●​ What are the potential downsides of the EU's stealth integration method?
●​ Answer: Integration by stealth can confuse and irritate citizens, as seen
during the euro-zone crisis when unexpected legal interpretations led to
bailouts, contradicting prior expectations. Moreover, there are legal
risks, as seen when the European Court of Justice has rejected overly
clever legal maneuvers by the Commission.
●​ Paragraph: 6
●​ What does the last sentence of the article imply?
●​ Answer: The last sentence suggests that while the EU's assertive and
strategic actions may improve efficiency and effectiveness, they could
also lead to dissatisfaction among member states. It emphasizes the
need for caution in applying power to avoid negative repercussions.
●​ Paragraph: 7

gist: The article discusses how the European Union is increasingly utilizing previously
overlooked legal provisions to achieve deeper integration and respond to challenges,
reflecting Chekhov's principle that neglected tools must eventually be put to use,
while also warning that this "stealth integration" approach can lead to citizen
discontent and legal complications.