photo credit: Mossaiq

They are two perennial problems facing the European Union: a lack of a clear, coherent vision for the future of European integration and a lack of any real leader to implement this vision. Answering “who is the head of the European Union?” is far more complicated than it should be. The President of the Commission? The head of the largest party in Parliament (joking)? Or perhaps the head of the European Council – the leader of the state which happens to hold the rotating EU Presidency?

This problem has suddenly got that much more difficult to answer, as yesterday the Czech government, the current holder of the Presidency, lost a vote of no confidence. How can you lose power in your country but retain it over a much wider area, the EU? According to EurActiv, the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek said “At the moment, this situation has no effect on the role of the president of the European Council,” in a statement issued by the Czech Presidency.

Three things support the Czech Republic’s retention of the Presidency. First of all, the post is actualy held by the rather outspoken President Václav Klaus. And secondly, as EurActiv also points out, “Governments of EU countries have collapsed while they were holding the Union’s reigns twice before – in 1993 in Denmark and in 1996 in Italy.” It continues, however, by pointing out that it has never happened in an economic crisis before – and this is no small crisis.

It is worth considering the extent to which these events led to Topolánek’s outspoken attacks on Obama’s stimulus package in the European Parliament today. Indeed, as the BBC reported:

He attacked the US’s growing budget deficit and the “Buy America” campaign, saying “all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the way to hell”.

Maybe something was lost in translation – but that’s pretty strong stuff.

The third thing that really supports Klaus’ position is the fact that, because the President doesn’t really do all that much (as has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past), nobody really cares. Yes, the President of the Council theoretically has power to significantly drive the agenda, but it doesn’t really make that much difference (compared to the status quo) if he doesn’t. One area in which Klaus may be seen to have affected the agenda is through his country’s refusal to ratify the Lisbon Treaty – but even this may be seen more through the prism of domestic politics than a deliberately obstructionist policy as President of the Council. My point is – yes, he’s put something of a break on further integration, but there’s no reason to suspect that this wouldn’t have happened if hadn’t been in this European role.

Nevertheless, it’s certainly not a great situation: the government of the country that holds the Presidency of the European Union has just collapsed, significantly (it seems) due to the way they’ve handled the economy. Which makes these problems that much more difficult to handle at a European level, when, despite the weak institutional powers, strong leadership could have a significant positive effect.

The Presidency will be held by the Czech Republic until a mere three weeks before European Parliament elections. It’s not a great advertisement for why people should care about – or engage with – the EU.

Update: Mark Mardell thinks it could have a bigger effect, particularly on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and sensitve negotiations over the Working Time Directive. Maybe this could indeed be Sarkozy’s moment to come to the rescue.. but don’t hold your breath

photo credit: Albertane

Some argue that it’s impossible to achieve a common political identity across 27 member states, pointing to different political traditions, language barriers and the enduring pride of the nation-state.  The possibility of “demos” and the very logic of supra-national representation was, for example, attacked by Czech President Vaclav Klaus in the European Parliament last month.  The attitude of Klaus, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council (bring on Sweden), is indicative of a habit of  unproductive naysaying.  It slams the European project without offering solutions and delights only those with preconceived Eurosceptic attitudes.

Without indulging in the media-fostered image of phantom overlords plotting away in Eurospeak in their Brussels hideaways, then, I fully admit the need for a greater sense of relevance for the EU and the importance of attempts to foster “Europeanness”.  Indeed, in response to Klaus’s challenge, the task of pro-Europeans is to identify measures that could be taken to improve the extent to which Europeans identify with their policy makers and planners.  Below the fold, I discuss some of these ideas.

For a start, most people will vote in June’s European elections based on national political concerns (actually, most people won’t vote at all, but let’s worry about those who will for now).  In Britain, for example, June’s vote will largely be a protest vote against Gordon Brown, just as the 2004 vote was used to give Tony Blair a kick in the teeth with the assumption that it didn’t really matter.  This, of course, only devalues the democratic worth of the European Parliament, and because most Britons don’t know or care what it does, they also aren’t particularly bothered whether the PES or EPP come out as the largest party.

In order to take elections to the European Parliament seriously, citizens need to see its effects on their everyday lives.  The crux of the issue here is the complexity of EU institutions and the democratic deficit at the heart of power.  Paradoxically, of course, the Lisbon Treaty which would have extended parliamentary powers was rejected by the Irish and by British (and other) public opinion over fears of unaccountability.  A post by Jon Worth emphasises this point about relevance, and highlights the campaign to have the parties within the European Parliament propose the President of the Commission.  At least that would show that European elections had some tangible impact.  He  points to the “Anybody but Barroso” campaign as a vehicle.  By the same token, I think that having an EU Commission President with whom people can identify as a leader would do a lot of good (again, of course, we’re talking about the what would have beens of the Lisbon Treaty).  Given this, I’m not sure I subscribe to the idea of anybody but Barroso – having an established political figure take on the role, rather than some bureaucratic compromise (I’m looking at you Jean-Claude Juncker) would intrinsically imbue the position with worth.

One way to make European elections relevant in their own right would be to encourage the development of pan-European parties and policies.  It’s true that within Eurocratic circles, such things do exist: the PES manifesto, for example, is worth a look.  But these are not documents with which ordinary voters will be familiar, even if all the constituent parties have signed up to their principles.  As this post from the Democratic Society blog argues, we need not just pan-European parties, but pan-European campaigns “so that people who vote for the Labour party in England know they’re voting for the same thing as someone voting for PASOK.”

photo credit: laurentius87

It’s also the little things that count.  In a talk I attended today by  Romano Prodi, the former EU Commission President and Italian PM recounted a conversation with a “former British Prime Minister” who had stressed to him the need for British citizens to be able to relate to European institutions.  ”But Tony,” Romano continued with a wry smile, “why then have you blocked the EU flag and anthem from the [constitutional] treaty?!”.  The point is clear.  To identify with the European project, institutions need to be simplified, even renamed, and adopt the trappings to which people can relate.

We need to abandon the fallacy that inter-European differences render common political parties and other such facets of “demos” impossible.  Direct relevance to people’s lives could well be the way to do this, especially in a period of economic crises where international solutions provide the only means of recovery.  In his talk, Prodi used a nice analogy between the Italian Risorgimento and modern European integration.  Silicy and Lombardy may still disagree on a lot, and in the mid-nineteenth century, they didn’t have a particularly common language either.  At that time Massimo D’Azeglio declared that “Italy is made, now we must make Italians”.  Perhaps then, by providing a convincing concept of Europe, we can create Europeans.