by TfUnQ

Is the European Union at a decisive point?

The Constitutional Treaty was savagely beaten by the Dutch and by the French.  Awkwardly righting itself ike an overweight middle aged boxer, convinced that its younger and sprightlier opponent ( the citizens of each European country) will fall victim to its experience, it crafted a new treaty. The Lisbon treaty, cunningly devised to make things like flags non-binding ( and yes it was a little paired down in other areas).  The leaders of the EU sent this one flying back at its citizens and this time avoided those awkward referendums by letting parliaments vote. After all, nothing says democracy like keeping out the people – not burdening their minds with issues or even giving them the chance.

This approach seemed to work until the Irish, actually did give their citizens a referendum and then it was voted down. Now,  I admit the anti-EU vote was a bit ridiculous in Ireland, with a mish-mash alliance of all loading up on one ticket. The “No” group had anti-abortionists, anti-immigrations, sovereignty issues that the EU was not touching on aswell as a good old mix of domestic politics, and the pro-EU group launched a rather half-hearted campaign failed to really engage the population despite the fact the EU was a core element in making the Irisi=sh economy as successful as it has been.

Then came the European Parliamentary elections, which told us little except what we already knew. That most people, but above all the English will treat it as a vote on national politics, that some countries will neatly forget everything the EU has done for them, Austria I’m looking at you,  and other countries will demonstrate just how sickeningly successful :-p their country is, by devoting large chunks of their vote to the single issue of Internet piracy laws…Sweden. However the overwhelming message, if not Euro-scepticism was “couldn’t care less-ism” with a whopping 57% of Europe just not bothering.

Since then, the a second round on the Lisbon treaty is being prepared in Ireland, with a couple more opt-outs and time for the Government to reassure the population that the EU will not be interfering on some key key issues, it appears the vote will get the yes. Then what?

Is the EU actually in a crisis? Nosemonkey reacting to a fellow blogger’s conversion to Euroscepticism had this to say:

I know how he feels.

This is a vital, fundamental problem that the EU seems repeatedly unable to address – it is excruciatingly hard to be enthusiastic about the European Union. No matter how much you try, the more you look into it, the more you see its flaws. The more you look for sensible ideas for its future purpose and reform, the more you see the tsunami of inadequates that tend to gain positions of power in the damn thing rise up and threaten to swamp the whole project in a deluge of tedium, petty squabbles, meaningless jargon and total lack of vision.

All of which is true, but where is the glimmer of light? Well about wheres it usually is.  It lies with the trundling technocratic engine of the EU eventually serving up something more palatable, more people driven than they currently have. The Lisbon treaty is not the answer, it is a little closer to the answer with more power to the European Parliament, it makes the European Union a little more democratic, a little less technocratic and brings MEP’s a bit closer to being able to truthfully say that the European Union is abobut the people.

Thats the start, but that alone won’t make a huge differnece, it at best further weakens Euro-sceptics position that the EU is completely undemocratic.    The more important detail probably lies int he creation of a President of the European Council,  (rather than the rotating chair approach we currently have). While this could go either way, a figure-head with a larger presence on the international stage, i.e. a former Prime Minister could potentialyl bring the work, and direction of the European Union much closer to home.

At present the European Union leadership, if it can be called that it a micture of Barroso, a man who endeared himself to the British public by saying  the people “that matter” in the UK  are talking of joining the Euro ( making him rude, elitist and wrong), and the rotating head of the EU Presidency, that would be Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who described the EU as a “failed and bankrupt entity”. If the E?U were to instead appoint somebody with a big name and good communication, to be leader that could give voice and shape to the EU’s role then that may prove enough to start an undoubtedly slow and gadual process of citizenry engagement, that might eventualyl turn the EU into something that people could understand and one day, even relate to.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath, not only does the Lisbon treaty still have to pass, but some of the proposed candidates for this “Presidency” are not exactly the stuff of dreams – here’s a few:

Mr Tony “Iraq Waq” Blair – actually probably a good choice in terms of Blair’s understanding of where Europe needs to be heading (CAP reform, streamlined decision making but the Iraq war still makes him a polarising figure on the continent).

Jean-Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg, probably a terrible choice and UKIP’s dream candidate, because he comes across as a bureacratic dull and totally lacking in wider popularity or name recognition becuase, well he’s from luxembourg.

Bertie Ahern – once suggested probably not so likely, Bertie isn’t a terrible choice at all but is he a big enough player on the European stage?

Angela Merkel – Not sure how likely this/ any of these are but I’m quite fond of Angela, proving herself a pragmatic and effective politician in Europe’s powerhouse Germany, she would have strong credentials.

All things considered however, I wouldn’t hold your breath

Predict09.eu is a prediction of the outcome of the June 2009 European Parliament elections and the resulting make-up of the next European Parliament. The prediction is based on a statistical model of the performance of national parties in European Parliament elections, developed by three leading political scientists: Simon Hix (London School of Economics), Michael Marsh (Trinity College Dublin), and Nick Vivyan (London School of Economics).

The prediction will be updated each week until the elections on 4-7 June.

Their model analyses the expected make-up of the next Parliament by bloc and by member-state.  Some highlights and analysis below the fold:

• The new Tory-led “European Conservative” bloc could well be the 4th largest grouping in the Parliament, and in percentage terms will reduce the size of the EPP from 37% of current MEPS to 34% of future ones.
• UK predictions: Labour +3; Lib Dem +1: Tory – no change; UKIP* – 8; Green – 2 (i.e. wiped out).  No prediction for the BNP other than the fact that they could “possibly win a seat” (more on this from the Hope Not Hate campaign).

*Incidentally, when you google UKIP, the description you’re presented with is: “Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.”  (Umm, if you have to convince people….)

If these numbers seems strange, remember, although it seems long ago now, that Labour are starting from a very low base and the Tories from a very good one.  Labour currently have 19 MEPs, down from 64 in the 1994-1999 Parliament (!).  The 2004 European elections were dominated by Iraq and a desire to punish Tony Blair without the risk of a Michael Howard Government.  A similar but reversed dynamic will likely see the Parti Socialiste losing seats to Sarkozy’s UMP despite the latter’s unpopularity.  This raises an interesting question for UK domestic politics.  Doubtless, the Tories and the media will highlight the “low base” point – but it seems inherently unlikely that the European elections can be the unadulterated disaster for Gordon Brown that some have predicted.

And as for the Commission:

On the basis of our predicted make-up of the next European Parliament, José Barroso has a good chance of being re-elected as Commission President. However, this assumes that the Liberals (ALDE) would support an EPP-Conservative coalition in support of Barroso, which is not a foregone conclusion. An alternative “progressive” coalition, of Liberals, Socialists, Greens, and Radical Left MEPs could still block the re-election of Barroso.

One last point.  It’s interesting to note that, although the European elections are only two months away, UK media coverage has been pretty poor (compare, for example, to dedicated coverage of the US elections two years in advance – yes I know, Barroso’s no Barack).  This is further evidence, in my opinion, that UK opinion makers are just not making the effort to make the EU accessible to the British people in the way that other governments and media outlets do.  For those with a sprinkling of French, for example, this special section of Le Monde.fr, with its interactive graphics, interviews and profiles, provides a striking contrast.

photo credit: mohammadali

As Mark announced on the update to his post, Cameron has formally reasserted his desire for the Conservatives to leave the European People’s Party, the centre right coalition for the European Parliament. Then he will attempt to form a new bloc, which  supports the economic benefits of Europe but keeps away from the federalist leanings underpinning that the EPP displays.

The problem as the FT’s Brussels Bureau Chief, makes clear is that the alternative to the EPP doesn’t look that  promising and worse, where there is promise for a new bloc, that may cause Mr Cameron as many problems. Yet the Conservative Party’s European alliances are only a small part of the bigger picture. Cameron’s move away from the EPP is not unusual or without precedent in British politics but it is one that has been tried and tested before and has invariably come up short. Furthermore, Cameron risks isolating the UK from Europe precisiely at a time when greater cooperation is, and will be necessary, all to secure control of a rebel wing of his party.

British parties and Europe

British political parties have a long and enduring precedent of meddling with the European Union. This volatile relationship is largely unique in western Europe a product of our policy making and party system. Where other European countries such as Germany formulate policy with regards to Europe more at the technical level of the civil service, British parties have always juggled with Europe according to the needs of the party.

With such a narrow party system, the importance of party unity is paramount to maintain an electoral advantage, Europe has proved incredibly divisive to British parties over the years, from Conservative anxiety over its free trade (both for and against), Federalism ( more against) and immigration, to name but a few of the key issues. Labour have been similarly divided over issues such immigration, the protection of workers and union rights. Both parties have had pangs of regret, Europe seemed a decidedly less exciting alternative to the British Empire which both parties opted to cling onto as it crumbled through Post-war Britain’sfingers.

To resolve the issue, parties have had to avoid Europe as a wedge issue, and find a stance which placataes enough dissenters for it not to be an issue in the election. Three consecutive electoral defeats have left the Conservatives hungry for power, and Cameron wants no splits as the party heads towards a 2010 election but will his move to placate the wing of his party prove short-sighted, Brown you will remember tried a not dissimilar approach for the Lisbon Treaty wherehe opted to sign the agreement but miss the photo opp, pleasing no one and irritating everyone.

Cameron’s Problems

Cameron’s latest attempt to navigate the field are perilous.

Tony Barber outlines the options:

The most likely candidates are the Czech Civic Democrats (who have a helpful English-language website) and Poland’s Law and Justice party (Polish only, as far as I can tell, but here’s what the party slogan translates as: “Patriotism, solidarity, modernity”). Neither fits neatly into mainstream western European definitions of moderate centre-right politics. Both have earned a reputation for being “difficult” on the EU stage. Like the Tories, however, they are not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. They should be taken seriously.

Other possible companions for the Conservatives are Italy’s Northern League, which is distinctly more right-wing. The League, I fear, could embarrass the Tories with its hostility to foreigners and rather peculiar version of northern Italian ethnic politics. Then there is the Danish People’s Party, which has a similar brand of conservative, anti-immigrant populism. Finally, there are some minor parties in Belgium, Latvia and Lithuania.

The problem for the Tories is that the chaps like them, across Europe, by and large are pro-Europeans leaving them with slightly oddball parties such as Law and Justice, who could cause them alot of potential embarassment if/when the Conservatives return to power. Law and Justice on issues such as  homosexuality, not to mention have proven particualrly awkward partners in the European Union, something which may marginalise Conservative’s position. Italy’s Northern League would be even worse, I could build a case against them but this poster from the 2005 regional elections in Italy does it so much better. Even within his party Cameron’s move could backfire,because in bringing back Kenneth Clark one of his biggest hitters in parliament and to the public, he has brought in one of the most pro-European Conservatives. Cameron is probably not a fool, andmust be aware of this but nevertheless it adds one more precarious balancing act that taps into deeply rooted feelings within the Conservative party, issue by issue he’ll have to take the temperatures of the factions to negotiate his pathway through Europe.

Britain and Europe in the 21st Century

I  am sympathetic to the Tory position on Federalisation, I disagree but their arguments are legitimate and fair. The European Union has largely failed to communicate what it stands for, what it does and where its going to, to European citizens. It’s not just the European Union’s fault, the British media and British political parties have constantly switched sides on Europe, always avoided the debate for fearing of exposing divisions in their own party.

The European Union however, is much much more than bendy bananas, more even than free markets and open borders. The European Union is about the long term security and future of the European continent, its very much about geopolitics and as Prodi made clear in a recent talk, no individual European country can have a serious voice on the world stage without standing shoulder to shoulder with its continental allies. This isn’t new, Europe’s status decline was evident immediately after the Second World War, it was a bi-polar world with the UK, a poor third place, desperate to maintain relevance through a relationship with the USA and by clinging on to its Empire.  Looking at the 21st century, the rise of China, India, Brazil and to some extent Russia will again significantly downsize the UK’s position in global standing. When Obama callled Cameron a lightweight, it was probably personal but it was also a pointed dig at his Euroscepticism, Obama’s belief that the UK’s position is as a big player through Europe but not a big player on its own.

Cameron has displayed some dangerous naivete on the world before,  his attempt to cash in on world leader status and make Brown appear dithering, during the Georgia-Russia conflict was embarassing, he showed a totally one sided view that barely took into account Georgia’s foolish military stunts on South Ossetia, offered provokative language with no examples of what was to be done and then ordered Georgia’s application should be sped up – which would only anatagonise Russia’s position and put NATO in a precarious spot having to provide cover for  Saakashvili’s   loose cannon foreign policy.

His attempts to paint a new world order where Britain can retain relevance without Europe and the US have a similarly hollow tone . Undoubtedlythe UK has opportunities with India yet to be exploted but if Cameron thinks these can amount to replacing Europe he is drastically over-estimating the UK’s role in the 21st century.  The UK’s economy is far more closely tied with both Europe and the US, our security issues frequently are far more closely aligned with the US and Europe, from border to security to terrorism and geo-strategic military interests.  Like it or not , the UK is inextricably linked to its “old foes”, the old Commonwealth  is over and  India will engage with us not the other way round.

The challenges facing the UK in the 21st century will require European above all European solutions,  not just border security, immigration and keeping open markets, some of the biggest issues will be challenges such as maintianging secure energy supplies in the face of Russi’a volatility,  transforming European economic development to fulfil the Lisbon treaty and invest in a research driven Europe in the so-called ‘knowledge economy’, does Cameron think India or the US will help the UK out with this, does he not think that the UK and Europe are irrevocably bound by geography and now the European Union.

The Road ahead

Where does this leave David Cameron and the Conservatives? By leaving the EPP and attempting to pursue a form of Europe supported by a minority group can only leader to the UK’s isolation and irritate other European leaders.

An Economist article a while back made the point clearly, there was a time when the UK sent its best and brightest to Europe, not because they were passionate about Europe but to make sure they got what they wanted out of it, those days are gone, and as the Economist went onto point out this represents a strategic error.From experience this hasn’t worked out well for Britain, because other European leaders simply continue to develop European policy which Britain is then left out of, unable to convert its strength into leverage because it alienates its potential allies to score quick points in party politics and refuses to seriously engage with Europe.

Thatcher may have won domestic plaudits for her rebate but her Bruges speech in 1988 was an embarassing admissions of how out of touch with European feeling she was. While Europe can prove frustrating to the UK, issues such as the CAP , the nature and size of its bureacracy and yes its federalist implications, half-hearted detachment only weaken’s the UK’s ability to alter its direction.  By leaving the EPP Cameron would not only be handicapping his relationship with other European leaders from the start but he would be weaken the UK’s long term ability to project its actual power into influence within Europe. One salient example is Blair’s attempt to reform the CAP, he had to give up the rebate just to gain a discussion of the CAP, yet had the UK been more engaged with Europe and cultivated alliances and policy positions, rather than pursue its childish semi0detachment Blair may have been more successful.

In reality, Cameron undoubtedly has some sort of fudged plan in mind, to appease both sides, but the future ahead looks set for a continuation of UK’s marginalisation in Europe, and that is of little good to anyone of its citizens.

photo credit: loungerie

Why exactly did the Cameroonian plan tug on the heartstrings of the John Redwoods and William Hagues of this world?  Above all, it’s important to remember that the modern-day British correlation between Left and Right and Europhile and Eurosceptic is an anomaly in international terms as well as historically (Labour’s 1983 manifesto promised, for example, to pull Britain out of the then-EEC).  Your most ardent Superstaters are likely to be found, not in the Socialist bloc, but within Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats or Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP.  The Tories smell a federalist scent wafting around the hemicycle, and it gives them the jitters. For them, there’s nothing worse than the familiar refrain of common security, immigration and foreign policies.    And don’t get the anti-Maastricht veterans started on the Lisbon Treaty (no really, please don’t). 

So, you might be asking, Cameron’s had four years: how’s he got on?  Not well, is the answer.  And with only three months before a new Parliament is elected, Cameron risks, in Prescottian style, getting the political egg on his face.  The problem is that most of the centre-right parties who make up the EPP are quite happy where they are, thank you very much.  As the largest grouping in the Parliament, they elect its President, who gets to do fun things like fawn over Hillary Clinton, and perhaps more importantly, have an evident leg-up in setting the political agenda and controlling committees.  Bubbling below the surface, as I mentioned last week, are also various propositions to expand the role of the parliamentary blocs.  If the Tories do break away, then, they could deprive the EPP of its largest-party status, giving European Socialists a boon (although the EPP still fancies its chances).  The European Parliament doesn’t like splinter groups, especially national ones.  It somewhat defies the point of a multitude of countries coming together to work towards common goals after centuries of division.  That’s why it takes 25 MEPs from seven countries to create a recognised grouping, eligible for EU funding.  To many, this looks like a bit of a long-shot for Cameron’s comrades, assuming he doesn’t want to end up sharing floor space with Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alessandra Mussolini or not-quite-Fascists-but-really-pushing-it parties (I’m looking at you, Law and Justice).

photo credit: edmittance

But internal European Parliament arrangements are probably not what are on Cameron’s mind.  For him, the political dilemma is tricky.  Either he stays true to his word, and succeeds in attracting Czech, Baltic, Swedish and Italian Conservatives as seems to be his best-case scenario (good luck…), thereby winning plaudits from within his Party, or he fails, embittering the Eurosceptics who are already miffed at the return of Ken Clarke.  Either way, in a move which will be one of the first to which foreign leaders pay attention, Cameron risks appearing like an isolationist who has no conception of the necessity of co-operation during this time of recession.  Not a great way to dispel doubts about the existence of a foreign policy vision.  By all accounts, Barack Obama wasn’t impressed by this kind of attitude when he met Cameron last summer.  So does Cameron move out of the EPP, annoying other governments to placate an internal faction of his own party, or does he stay in, and risk re-opening the fissures which destroyed the Conservatives in the Thatcher-Major era?  Either way, Dave,  the clock’s ticking…

Update: the decision looks pretty final.

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.