March 5, 2007
Reforming Europe
Tomorrow I am taking part in a propaganda exercise. Or - to be more precise - I will be chairing a session at a conference in Brussels that will launch the new "Movement for European Reform."
It would be difficult to describe the MER as a broad-based movement. In fact, as far as I can see, it looks pretty much a front for Britain’s Conservative party. There are only two political parties represented at the opening conference - the Tories and the centre-right ODS from the Czech Republic. The conference will be opened with a speech from Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister and the closing address will be from David Cameron, the Tory leader.
Getting Europe right is critical for Cameron. His problem is that large parts of the Tory party are obsessed by the European Union and regard the EU as an evil plot to deprive Britain of its freedom - and its fish.
But the British electorate seems relatively unconcerned. So if Cameron shouts about Europe too much - he risks looking angry and irrelevant to the middle-of-the-road British voters he is targetting. But if he does not sound angry enough, than he will alienate core supporters and important fund-raisers - some of whom may waltz off to join the United Kingdom Independence Party.
The solution the Tories have hit upon - to judge by tomorrow’s agenda - is to pronounce themselves firmly in favour of "reform" in general - but to steer clear of the issues that have traditionally driven their activists into a spit-flecked rage. So there will be no discussions on the Common Fisheries Policy or the EU constitution. Instead, there will be three main panels: one on European economic competitiveness (which I am chairing), one on the environment and one on trade and the developing world.
Will this repackaging work? The Blair government and its operatives are already keenly attempting to discredit that Movement for European Reform. Their chosen line seems to be that Cameron is either completely isolated within Europe - or in bed with extremists. It is certainly looks faintly embarrassing to have only one other mainstream political party from the 27-member EU on the platform with the Tories. And the Blairite spinners have also landed a blow by pointing out that Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and leader of the ODS, has called global warming a "myth" - which is definitely not the Cameronian line.
But I think the real problem with the Movement for European Reform may turn out to be that its agenda is too bland - not that it is too extreme. Both the Blair government and the European Commission would probably agree with its main themes - that Europe needs to be more competitive, that the EU should do more on the environment and that EU trade policies often hurt the developing world. If this is all that Cameron has to say, he risks not having any distinctive message on Europe at all.
But perhaps that is unfair. I will have a much better idea of whether there is any substance to all this, after I have travelled out to Brussels with the Tory leader on the early Eurostar and listened to his speech. I will report back on Wednesday.
Improved functioning of the EU is desirable. So is expansion. But, these should not & do not require the creation of an EU Super-State.
Using the improvement of the EU’s functions (”building a multilateral Europe”) as a false excuse for excessively reducing present & aspirant members’ integrity & “independence” would be folly.
(The EU admitting new nations & forming relationships with other associations/communities-of-nations ought to be permanently possible.)
(The Arab League, African Union, etc- ought to be able to become eligible for close-to-EU-member status. But to facilitate this, further integration of EU member nations is unnecessary & would damage the basis for the EU’s formation decades ago).
The main motivations behind the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) (precursor to
the “EU”) were so that this “association of economically & socially aligned, independent nations” would, by its structure, be an obstacle against repeats of the worst facets of the continent’s history- damaging competition, ego-driven militarism & costly, destructive wars.
It was also to enable a concurrent, joint approach to development of member nation’s economies, governance
& legal principles, as well as social & health programmes.
A group of economically & socially “aligned” nations is all that was conceived & proposed initially; worked towards over the following decades- & all that is required for these laudable, & needed, functional objectives.
After many treaty revisions, this was amply achieved by the European Economic Community of the early 1990’s.
EEC/EU member states going further in integration,
(as the rejected, so called EU Constitution would have mandated, or, as some of those who support further EU expansion are alleging: that further EU expansion would demand further integration of member states,)
will, through the back door, result in the EU ceasing to be a “European community” of equal nations & would result in the EU/EEC becoming an amalgamated unitary state…
Unnecessary, national-identity-killing forced-integration-of-member-nations, will only serve to dangerously erode the original purposes of the EEC/EU.
Super-states’ leaders, like those of lesser states, are always going to be tempted to use their latent military & other types of clout on the world stage. Sometimes for good. But also, not for good.
The wrong right-wing party taking power in a “new” super state’s parliament could, without justification, decide to trammel the rights of minorities, suspect ethnic/cultural groups; the poor; women &/or people of religious beliefs within its own borders. It could decide to do the same outside its borders.
In these types of cases, given the neutered abilities of member state’s governments to affect the decision making of the “new” super-state’s “super parliament” (due to the super-state’s member-nation’s surrendering traditional authorities/responsibilities to the empowered super-state’s super-parliament)
- countries the size of Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia or bigger countries like Great Britain or France, could do almost nothing to prevent their resources being used by the Super-state’s government for corrupt or inappropriate purposes.
- Member states disagreeing with a super-parliament run amok, would have no options other than to secede from the super-state, with disastrous economic & other effects- if the super-parliament allowed secession of member states.
EU member states need to remain aligned, to varying & flexible degrees- economically & socially. The world as a whole needs this as well.
Mandatory dissolution of EU member nations’ borders- by misrepresented EU directive’s- or misguided, so called constitution- does not need to be part of any future EEC/EU.
The same can be said for an EU defense or foreign policy Minister, or the adoption (either by implication or treaty) of a single currency by all- or new- member states.
Although improving EU function is desirable, using this as a false excuse for further integration of EEC/EU member states will defeat the very laudable purposes that motivated the EU’s (EEC’s) founding.
Worse, this will enable a scurrilous political elite of the continent to have a forum, & vehicle, for an agenda which has nothing to do with fairness, human rights or shared economic progress- an agenda predicated on a wish to have a world voice that their respective nations would not have alone- a job for the UN, not an EEC/EU on steroids.
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | March 8th, 2007 at 4:20 am | Report this comment(near) Vancouver,
Roderick Louis wrote:
Worse, this will enable a scurrilous political elite of the continent to have a forum, & vehicle, for an agenda which has nothing to do with fairness, human rights or shared economic progress-
Ironically the Czech ODS party which is avowedly Eurosceptic, has a very ’scurrilous’ record. Essentially they seem to be Eurosceptic simply because the EU has prevailed upon the Czech state to be more transparent both in economic and more broadly political terms. This has reduced the room for manoeuvre of corrupt and power addicted politicians (not, admittedly, exclusive to ODS). Were it not for the EU, the Czech Republic would be a far worse place in which to live, but Vaclav Klaus will deny this, along with climate change, to his last breath. No wonder William Hague was almost audibly squirming when challenged about ODS on the Today programme.
Posted by: Richard Hunt | March 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm | Report this commentJust one actual comment. Václav Klaus, once the founder of ODS, is nowadays “only” honorary leader of ODS. His influence in the party cannot be underestimated, is, however, declining since Mirek Topolánek has become party leader. The difference between Klaus and Topolánek (and the party he represents), which may look tenuous in the Europe, as Klaus’ voice is stronger thanks to his isolated (I am not using any stronger words in this description because of my great state of mind) position, is much deeper in fact and lies not only in EU-, global warming- and NGO-attitude.
Posted by: Ondřej | March 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pm | Report this commentRichard Hunt’s opinion does not, indeed, coincide with the reality.