Schuman’s vision

“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.” — Robert Schuman, 9 May 1950

I. The Founding Vision: A Moral & Democratic Community

Robert Schuman did not envision a bureaucratic superstate. His goal was a supranational community built on peace, reconciliation, and shared sovereignty.

• Peace Through Shared Sovereignty: By pooling coal and steel—the “muscles of war”—under a High Authority, Schuman aimed to make war “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.”
• Democracy Through Institutions: As the first President of the European Parliamentary Assembly, Schuman viewed the assembly as the “political institution par excellence” where the people’s voices would guide the project.
• Christian Humanism: Schuman believed democracy was a product of the Christian belief in human dignity. He spoke of a European “soul” rooted in freedom, equality, and solidarity.
• Gradualism: He advocated for a bottom-up approach where national democracies remained the foundation, and European unity emerged from them organically rather than replacing them.

II. The Divergence: Where the EU Stands Today

While the EU is the successor to Schuman’s project, it has shifted from a moral community to a technocratic system.

III. The Institutional Gap: The Failing “Cards”

Schuman intended for national parliaments to be the heart of European legitimacy. Today, the mechanisms meant to protect national sovereignty are often ineffective.

In Robert Schuman’s philosophy, the national parliament was the heart of democracy. He believed that the supranational body should only act where national governments were clearly unable to do so (the principle of subsidiarity).

• The Powerless “Yellow Card”: Though national parliaments can issue a “Yellow Card” to protest EU overreach, the Commission can—and does—ignore them. In cases like the EPPO (2013) and the Posted Workers Directive (2016), collective national objections were formally dismissed by Brussels.
• The Missing “Red Card”: Unlike Schuman’s vision of a “service to the nations,” there is no binding “Red Card” that allows national democracies to collectively veto harmful or overreaching EU legislation.

Examples:

The Institutional Gap: Why the “Cards” Fail

The Treaty of Lisbon (2009) created an “Early Warning System” to give national parliaments a voice. If enough parliaments object to a law, they can issue a “Yellow Card.”

In practice, this mechanism has been triggered only three times in 15 years, and the results show how far the EU has moved from Schuman’s vision of national parliaments as the “foundation.”

1. The “Monti II” Case (2012) — The Symbolic Withdrawal

• The Issue: A proposal to limit the right to strike in certain cross-border industrial disputes.
• The Reaction: 12 national parliaments (including those from Denmark, France, and the UK) issued a “Yellow Card,” arguing the EU was interfering in domestic labor laws.
• The Result: The Commission withdrew the proposal, but it explicitly stated it was doing so because of “lack of political support in the Council,” not because the national parliaments were right. This sent a message that the Commission, not the parliaments, determines what is a “sovereignty” issue.

2. The EPPO Case (2013) — The Dismissed Card

• The Issue: Creating the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
• The Reaction: 14 parliamentary chambers issued a “Yellow Card,” claiming this was a massive overreach into national criminal justice systems.
• The Result: The Commission simply ignored the card and maintained the proposal unchanged. They argued that their “expert” analysis of subsidiarity was more valid than the collective opinion of the national parliaments.

3. Posted Workers Directive (2016) — The “Rejected” Card

• The Issue: New rules on “equal pay for equal work” for workers temporarily sent to other EU countries.
• The Reaction: 11 Member States (mostly from Eastern Europe) triggered a “Yellow Card,” arguing the EU was destroying their competitive advantage and violating national sovereignty over wages.
• The Result: The Commission formally rejected the parliaments’ concerns and pushed the law through anyway.

Refined Comparison: National Power vs. EU Directive

Why This Matters for Schuman’s Legacy

Schuman believed that for Europe to be democratic, the citizen must feel represented through their national parliament. By making the Commission the final judge of its own power, critics argue the EU has created a “closed loop” where Brussels decides the limits of Brussels.

Returning to Schuman’s roots would mean giving national parliaments a binding “Red Card”—allowing them to say “No” to a law that they believe violates their national culture or sovereignty, a power they currently lack.

Conclusion: Returning to the Roots

Schuman’s vision is more relevant than ever in an age of growing distrust and fragmentation. To restore legitimacy, the EU must move beyond being a “regulator” and return to being a “community.”

The EU can still recover Schuman’s moral and democratic foundation by:

• Giving National Parliaments a Binding “Red Card”: Ensuring that if a majority of national democracies say “No,” the law stops.

• Prioritizing Solidarity over Directives: Moving away from top-down mandates and returning to concrete, shared projects that citizens can see and touch.

• Restoring the “European Soul”: Acknowledging that the union is not just a market or a legal code, but a fellowship of distinct cultures rooted in human dignity.

Schuman did not want to replace nations—he wanted to unite them in a way that made them stronger and more free. The EU today risks losing its soul by forgetting that it exists to serve its members, not to rule them, beyond being a “regulator” and return to being a “community.”

The EU can still recover Schuman’s moral and democratic foundation by:

• Giving National Parliaments a Binding “Red Card”: Ensuring that if a majority of national democracies say “No,” the law stops.
• Prioritizing Solidarity over Directives: Moving away from top-down mandates and returning to concrete, shared projects that citizens can see and touch.
• Restoring the “European Soul”: Acknowledging that the union is not just a market or a legal code, but a fellowship of distinct cultures rooted in human dignity.

IV. Conclusion: Returning to the Roots

To regain legitimacy, the EU must bridge the “Democratic Deficit” by returning to Schuman’s principles:

1. Empower National Parliaments: Introduce a binding “Red Card” mechanism.
2. Limit Commission Power: Restore the executive to a technical role that serves, rather than leads, the nations.
3. Restore Moral Foundations: Re-center the union on human dignity and “de facto solidarity” rather than just bureaucratic expansion.

Schuman did not want to replace nations; he wanted to unite them. The EU today risks losing its legitimacy by forgetting that it exists to serve its members, not to rule them.

Source Spotlight: The Schuman Project (schuman.info)

This independent research archive argues that the modern EU has deviated from Schuman’s “Supranational Democracy” into a “Technocratic Intergovernmentalism.” It provides primary source evidence that the original 1950 vision was built on a binding “Charter of the Community” that prioritized the free choice of the people over the secret diplomacy of governments.