The State of the European Union. The European Parliament faces its most important elections yet

SOCIAL EUROPE – NAMING THE MYTH, PRESERVING THE MODEL AND TAKING CONCRETE ACTION 85 The name of this initiative suggests a signifi- cant breakthrough in European social policy. However, the concrete political significance of the Pillar remains hidden behind the auspicious title: it may potentially be useful as a starting point for further initiatives but it is unlikely that much will change as a result. Indeed, the Pillar will not be added to any European treaties or to EU secondary law. As a European Council, European Parliament and European Commission proclamation, it is not legally binding. The room for manoeuvre to implement the Pillar’s princi- ples is extremely narrow. For this reason alone, the Pillar has limited impact in practice. Impetus is still most likely expected for European legisla- tion – provided that the Commission engages with the Pillar’s principles 9 . The Pillar is therefore first and foremost an example of symbolic politics – at least until some concrete action has been taken. However, the (hitherto futile) wait for a social Europe is not solely a result of trepidation on the part of the Commission, but is due primarily to structural causes. The formal options for shaping European social policy and collective labour law are nar- rowly defined. Moreover, considerable differ- ences exist between Member States in terms of the organisation, standard and capacity of their social systems. A European social policy would have to be as suitable for the Romanian and Spanish welfare state as it is for the Swedish or French situation – without reducing social standards in countries with well-developed wel- fare states. 9  Gruny, P.; Harribey, L.: Rapport d‘information fait au nom de la commission des affaires européennes sur la conver- gence sociales dans l‘Union Européenne , n. 457 (2017- 2018), 2018. Available at: http://www.senat.fr/rap/r17-457/ r17-457_mono.html Complicating matters even further are the large majorities required in European decision- making processes and the fundamental pro- grammatic differences between national gov- ernments on what constitutes a “correct” (European) social policy. Member States are, understandably, keeping a close eye on their responsibilities in terms of social policy and labour law. There is unlikely to be much change in this regard even after Brexit, even if in the past it was primarily the British who had their foot on the social policy brake. Both the lack of legal competence and the necessary political unity between the Member States are obstructing the formulation of ambi- tious social policies at European level. The Pillar reflects the Commission’s currently limited op- portunities for action from both a legal and po- litical perspective. However, the Commission should not escape criticism in the future if it fails to align its own behaviour consistently with the Pillar’s principles. A plea for a European social market economy model While the conjuring up of the European social area might seem to be something of a pipe dream, it nevertheless remains a meaningful model that needs to be accompanied by con- crete action. Initiating a national retreat or in- voking the European mantra of “more of the same” is not the answer. Renationalisation in the name of sovereignty and democracy, recom- mendations to leave the euro area or sugges- tions – with reference to subsidiarity and an “enlightened protectionism” – that Members should align themselves nationally, are less than helpful. The consequences of such non-integra- tion would be considerable and the side effects