|
| |
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Battle for the European Union's identity
By DAVID HOWELL
LONDON -- The latest battle of Brussels is over and news of the outcome is
circulating through the capitals of the European Union. But unlike the ferocious
battles of past centuries on European soil, this appears to be an engagement
that everyone has won.
The French are happy because the new European treaty that has emerged from the
clash downgrades competition and free-market economics as the goals of the EU,
which the French never warmed to, much preferring protection for their
industries and farmers.
The Germans are happy because their leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel, said she
badly wanted a new constitution for Europe, and although it is no longer called
that, it amounts to a huge new rule book for the EU — a constitution in all but
name.
The British are happy — or at least their present leaders are — because outgoing
Prime Minister Tony Blair can claim that all his so-called red lines, protecting
British independence in areas such as social and labor-market policy, judicial
processes and the conduct of foreign policy, have held firm against continental
assault (the military metaphors are plentiful).
Even the Polish leaders are happy, since the change in the EU voting system
which they believe would have been unfavorable to Poland, has been indefinitely
postponed.
So that is the picture presented to the public — harmony all round, with the
union ready to go forward — although to unknown destinations. The agreed new
treaty text will now be referred to a big intergovernmental conference to work
out the details, and then will have to be ratified in each member-state's
parliament.
But what is the reality behind all the press releases and triumphant statements?
It is that behind the scenes the arguments will persist more vigorously than
ever about the future shape and character of Europe, about the question of new
members joining (such as Turkey), about the powers that in practice will
continue to slide into the hands of the EU's central institutions, about the
right of the union to act as a legal entity and sign treaties, and about the
powers and authority of the proposed new president. He or she will now be
elected for 2 1/2 years — and in practice probably for five — and is bound to be
credited, not least by the media, with new supra-national powers.
The British, French and Dutch leaders have all been desperate to secure a treaty
that can be presented when they get home as nothing very important — mere
tidying up the loose ends of governance in an enlarged union. They will argue
that the new treaty is definitely not a measure in any way that would weaken
their national constitutions or merit a referendum.
Will they succeed? If it was allowed, a referendum would be about much larger
matters than the small print of the new treaty. It would be about the popularity
generally of the EU. In the British case it would almost certainly be lost, and
quite probably in other member countries as well. The result would be general
confusion in Europe and years of more argument. At the root, the problem is that
the treaty-making experts in government and the general public are talking quite
different languages.
Experts and officials are concerned with efficiency, the general public with
democracy. The experts want an enlarged EU to work more smoothly, to legislate
more swiftly and to act as more of an entity in world affairs when dealing with
global issues and other countries, such as the United States, Russia, Japan and
China.
The general public wants a Europe that is much more loosely associated and has
less power at the center, not more. They would have liked a new treaty that
decentralizes, that returns powers to the nation state and that recognizes the
hugely varied interests that each member state has in the global network. They
will ask how many powers the new treaty returns to national parliaments and the
people, and the answer is, of course, none.
Above all, they would have liked the European institutions to be far closer to
the people, to consult and debate more scrupulously before rushing into new laws
and regulations, and to focus far more closely on local needs and cultures when
making new rules — for instance about the environment and green issues.
That's not what they are being offered. A stronger president, a more activist EU
foreign policy, a mass of new issues that will now be decided by majority vote
rather than unanimous vote (63 in all) — thus removing any one country's veto
power — and a continued drift toward centralized EU integration — these are the
fixed menu that confronts a European public that wanted something quite
different.
The result is that there will be a tense clash of wills between governments and
governed — certainly in Britain and possibly elsewhere as well. The debate about
the future shape of Europe is therefore far from over. If anything it will now
intensify and grow more complex.
EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso thinks Europe can now move forward.
Many people at the European grassroots fear it will now be moving back.
|
