Lull

Mud Slinging

So other commitments have kept me from writing this until now, but I just couldn't let it pass without comment. Last week Nicholas Sarkozy blamed Peter Mandelson for the Irish referendum 'no' vote, claiming that his commitment to reducing the EU's farming subsidies had alienated Ireland's farmers. Being Nicholas Sarkozy, of course he didn't let it rest there: he went on to have go at Mr Mandelson's commissionership in general. Apart form the possibility that Sarkozy is 'just a bit mental', what conclusions can we draw from this little outburst?

Firstly we must put Sarkozy's comments into context: France is about to take over the rotating presidency of the EU, which under the current system won't happen for another 13 years. France takes over at a time when the EU is having a wobble because of the Irish 'no' vote, and Sarkozy is probably under pressure to 'just get on with it' from his great Euro-ally and architect of the Lisbon Treaty, Agela Merkel. Meanwhile poor old Nicholas isn't quite as popular at home as he once was, so he needs something to boost his flagging poll ratings and get everyone all exited about whatever Lisbon v2.0 drivel him and Angie are going to try and drive through over the next six months.

If Mandelson's anti-subsidy stance really did upset the Irish farmers, imagine what it did to the French farmers, who are a bunch well known for expressing their displeasure at any given opportunity by blockading the nearest transport hub and burning tyres (which can't be doing much for the environment, let alone the respiratory health of the French farming community). So Sarko L'American is playing to the gallery, and what better to play than a classic bit of Brit-bashing? Mandelson therefore, is the ideal target for M. Sarkozy: he is virulently anti-protectionist and British. When the people of France turn round in a few months time and say 'hang on, this Treaty of Lille (or wherever) is exactly the same as the Lisbon Treaty, but with another name' he can smile that slightly unnerving smile and say 'but of course, there was nothing wrong with that treaty, and we'd have got away with it if it wasn't for that pesky Brit.'

I am being a little facetious of course (only a little though), but this ludicrous situation does highlight a few of the problems with the way in which the EU functions. It is beholden to the presidencies of each member state in turn for six months, and each member state has an agenda that may not necessarily be anything to do with the EU itself. Obviously the issue of farming subsidies has everything to do with the EU, but Sarkozy's take on it has an entirely French viewpoint, if it happens to coincide with the viewpoints of other member states, then that is a happy coincidence. Politicians will tend first to their constituency, and rightly so. Sarkozy's constituency is France and Mandelson's is Europe, yet you have a bizarre situation where Sarkozy as president of France is effectively in charge of an organisation for which he is in no way democratically accountable except to a small portion of its constituents. Obviously the counter argument is that Mandelson is accountable to no one, and therefore not a good democratic counterbalance, and I would agree with this. Strictly speaking, Peter Mandelson is accountable to no one but his peers, but he clearly thinks of his job in terms what he can do for Europe if not the world (he does after all have a bit of a Blair complex). This in stark contrast to Sarkozy, who will only ever see his job in terms of what he can do for the people of France, and rightly so: it is his job after all.

So I am not really saying that, in terms of their roles within the EU, one is better than the other; I am saying that each is problematic for entirely different reasons and neither serve a democratic Europe sufficiently. Surely it is these aspects of the constitutional failings of the EU that we should be addressing in these treaties, then maybe we could have an EU that the people of Europe want, rather than one that some of the people in France, Germany, the Czech Republic or whoever wins the 'presidency lottery' want.

Irish Eyes Don't Have It

There are several sayings based around the idea of not biting the hand that feeds you, and I can bet most of them have been wheeled out in reference to the Republic of Ireland at some point in the last few days. Certainly someone in Brussels will be viewing that particular country as a parent views their ungrateful teenage offspring, wondering that they can be so ungrateful after everything that has been done for them whilst they were growing up. Indeed, Ireland's response could easily be seen as teenage, partly for the determination to resist something because it is perceived to be against one or other of your deeply cherished principles, without ever actually finding out whether it is or not, but also for the perception that the world is against you, that you should 'stick it to the man' whatever the consequences.

Extending the metaphor as far is it will go, there are many in Brussels who will want to take the parental line with Ireland, and gently reprimand it, or smile condescendingly before carrying straight on, knowing what is best for the silly thing. Unfortunately, Ireland is more than a teenager, it is a nation-state with a constitutional requirement to have a referendum on external treaties. Everyone knows the facts: Ireland is the only country to vote on the Lisbon treaty, and it voted 'no', and had it not been the only country to hold a referendum, it would most likely not have been the only country to vote against the Lisbon treaty.

How can we be so certain that this is the case? Well, simply by looking at what happened in Ireland. Many people voted against the Lisbon treaty because they 'didn't understand it', which is a poor argument, considering that I would imagine that most people don't understand half of the legislation that is passed in their name, but do not take issue with this fact when it comes time to vote for the people who passed it. Many would argue that this is exactly why we shouldn't have referendums about such things, as we vote for politicians so that they can interpret complex legislation and decide upon it on our behalf. However, the job of those same politicians is to explain such complex legislation in language that we can understand, whether in order for us to vote for them with understanding, or, in the case of a referendum, to vote for it with understanding. This, clearly, the political establishment in Ireland who were backing the 'yes' vote failed to do spectacularly. But is it entirely their fault? Did people really vote 'no' because they didn't understand Lisbon, or because they didn't trust it?

Is there a sense that saying 'I don't trust it' sounds just a little bit simple or small minded, because saying it in reference to something European is just a bit too close to saying 'I don't trust those foreigners'? If this is the case, then it could be seen as a very small semantic victory for the EU: that people are no longer willing to talk openly of mistrust. Unfortunately the lack of vocalisation does not get rid of the sentiment: just because people no longer say they don't trust Europe, doesn't mean their mistrust is gone. The perception remains of some malignant old boys club hell-bent on power at any cost, and once again the Commission and their chums are doing little to dispel it. If they do force the Lisbon treaty through regardless of Ireland's decision, they will lose any vestige of the legitimacy that they should crave in the eyes of the people of Europe. There will be a genuine possibility of electorates turning against any pro-European stance, and the genuine possibility of some countries seceding from the EU. Better that they should take the chance once more to make one last breast of constitutional reform that will be acceptable to the people, that national politicians would be happy to take to their electorate in a referendum.

Impossible? Quite possibly.

Another reason why Ireland voted 'no' was because of fears over what influence the Lisbon treaty might have over their unique approach to human rights, or that it might introduce conscription into some kind of European super-army. These fears were unfounded, but once they were voiced, they stuck to the Lisbon treaty like glue. Anyone could dream up anything they liked about the treaty, and some of it would almost certainly remain in the head of one voter or another. The EU has such a bad image that people will believe anything about it, after all, this is the organisation that tried to enforce straight bananas and ban certain flavors of crisp, isn't it? With open scaremongering from those who opposed it, the Lisbon treaty would have struggled to gain a yes vote anywhere there had been a referendum. It probably would have struggled in Luxembourg as soon as someone spread the rumour that it contained a clause to move all of Europe's administrative functions to Brussels.

So it's unintelligible (well boring anyway), unattractive and prone to wild speculation, but it's just constitutional legislation, the kind of stuff that drifts through our national parliaments year in year out, without anyone batting an eyelid. Why do people people get so worked up about it? Is it genuinely as bad as its detractors say? Would it not matter what it said or did, would people hate it just because? There are at least two factors that come into play: firstly that the scale of the changes required by the Lisbon treaty is much larger than the tinkering adjustments most constitutional legislation enact these days, and secondly the popular press (and therefore a vast swathe of the public) decided long ago that Europe in general was a bad idea, much as they did recently with Gordon Brown. This means that anything associated with either subject can now be treated with the minimum amount of analysis required to pass for journalistic integrity as the undercurrent of implied derision has been established and remains throughout; the unspoken phrase 'you know you can't trust them' drifts continually just beneath the surface.

This is unfortunate for Gordon Brown, it means that unless he produces an economic miracle, invents a cure for cancer or secures Rupert Murdoch's backing before the next election, he will lose his current job. It is unfortunate, but it is by no means a tragedy: Gordon Brown is just one man, he will be replaced and will spend the rest of his life as a bitter but highly effective thorn in the side of any future government. Personally I'd really like it if he went and sorted out the Middle East, not just because it requires a sober politician, but because it would put Tony Blair's nose out of joint and prove to him once and for all that there is more to politics than ego and empty gesture. Anyway, I digress. The point is that Gordon Brown is a person, he will be replaced by someone who will get a fresh start with the press; the EU is in institution, it will not be replaced, it will not get a fresh start, it will not get another chance with the press, and so the entrenched opinion of it will remain, unless it can be replaced. If a new constitution could be formed so radically divorced from the current EU, it could perhaps be seen as a complete change. I can't see it happening during the French Presidency somehow, and I don't mean that as a slur on the French, I just think it is the sort of thing that would take a little longer than six months to sort out.

Of course a lot of my understanding of perception of the EU is very UK-centric, and this is no good at all. Through recent discussions, I have come to the conclusion that (again in the UK at least) a big problem with our approach to the EU is that it is from an entirely national standpoint, so I must find a way of finding out more conclusively what the prevailing opinions are around Europe, so that I can better understand what could work and what people would want or accept. If anyone has ideas, please let me know.

Translucent

It is certainly possible that I have been unfair to the EU in implying that it is entirely opaque. Once again I have been doing my research, and believe me, there's a lot to do. I was looking at the European Parliament website, which is an amazing thing in itself; one can go there for information on one's (or indeed anyone's) MEPs and quickly find oneself deviating into all sorts of minutiae of parliamentary business - who submitted what questions, the minutes of each parliamentary session, the results of each vote, etc. etc. - all carefully transcribed into the Union's 26 official languages, no doubt by some dedicated team of highly skilled linguists. This kind of thing is a marvel, and when you start to think about all the effort and the co-ordination of masses of vast talent that go into the running the organisation and faithfully reporting its activities, it is easy to be amazed that it works at all.

It is impressive that such an organisation can run as smoothly as it does, but being impressed by an organisation's efficiency is still a far cry from being impressed by its output. The website EU Observer notes that the European Parliament has come a long way since its early days as a 'talking shop', but it spends a lot of time discussing issues over which it has no control such as foreign policy, rather than sticking to areas in which it has real power. The reason why the Parliament does not want to stick to the areas over which it has control are probably similar to the reasons why so many people fail to take an interest in European politics: mainly the fact that those areas over which the Parliament does have control are largely extremely unglamorous. The Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, transport initiatives and emissions trading schemes - whilst being extremely important to the running of our infrastructure, our food supply and the welfare of our communities - are not the sorts of things people usually get excited about unless they happen to be farmers, fishermen or any of the other minority groups that are directly affected by such issues. Politicians want glamor, they want headlines, they want acknowledgment for their supreme talents, and the only way they are going to get this is with 'sexy' politics. Unfortunately the ranks of political egos that make up the governments of the constituent nation states would never be foolish enough to let anything 'sexy' fall out of their sphere of influence, which leaves the ranks of political egos in Brussels desperately scrabbling around for anything they can get hold of, or simply talking 'sexy' even if they can't legislate 'sexy'.This means that people generally fail to take any interest in the actual business of the EU and only take an interest when the Parliament or the Commission make statements inflammatory enough to upset the national tabloids. The upshot of this is the miserable turnout at the European Parliamentary elections and the weakening of the democratic accountability of the Parliament and the therefore the EU as a whole.

It is incredible, I am trying to come to this with an open mind, but each time I think about it I end up becoming more cynical. I suppose I want a parliament like those of the member states, that has genuine legislative clout, but I'm not sure that the EU as it exists is capable of such things, and I'm not sure that it would be what people want, or at least think they want. Anyway, regardless of what people want, the national politicians certainly don't want a powerful EU, at least not at the expense of their own power. It may also simply be that the EU is a victim of its place in history. Since the treaty of Rome fifty years ago, and certainly over the last twenty years the trend of politics in Europe as a whole has been towards a centre ground, with any differences in policies between most parties these days being minuscule in comparison to the vast gulf that existed between the extremes of the political viewpoints of the early to mid twentieth century. Politicians have to a large extent become glorified administrators, so it is no surprise that a political institution that has grown up during this period of homogenisation should not resemble the great institutions of the past, but a large and efficient office, or one that at least appears efficient, or tries to look busy when the boss is around...

Perhaps it is then, that the European Parliament will not become more like the national parliaments, but the other way around. Once everything has been privatised, and almost all of what was the public sector is run by a selection insurance companies, 'government' will simply be bodies of administrators squabbling over the bones of whatever system is left. With nothing 'glamorous' or controversial left for the politicians to do, voter apathy would skyrocket, finally allowing us to opt ourselves out of democracy. So, the EU – not a dysfunctional democracy at all, but a vision of the future?

A Constitutional

So in the UK the pointless machinations continued last week. The Tories were in a pickle because the Liberal Democrats wouldn’t support their calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the Liberal Democrats for their part pointed out that the referendum wouldn’t be about the treaty, but rather about the UK’s membership of the EU full stop, and that we should just have a referendum on that. Both the Government and the Liberal Democrats used the ‘excuse’ that the Lisbon Treaty is an amending treaty and not a constitution, and therefore not the thing that each promised a referendum on in their manifesto at the last election. I have to say I have some sympathy with this. The document itself is all half-sentences and paragraphs for insertion and is not a coherent whole, which, taken alone makes little or no sense, and therefore to hold a referendum on it would seem a little ludicrous, as very few people would be willing to read the document and the previous three treaties required for it to make sense. So the politicians would have to surmise what the changes are to make their cases in a referendum and such summations are bound to be bent one way or another according to the particular interpreter’s feelings about Europe. Of course I understand that it is the nature of all political debate that statistics, figures and most especially obtuse legal documents can be and are argued about endlessly from whichever viewpoint one cares to take, but a document like the Lisbon Treaty gives a vast amount of rope to anyone wishing to swing any way they like. In this sense the EU and indeed the people of Europe have missed a trick with a written constitution.

A constitution would be a single document that would replace all the various establishing and amending treaties that have gone before it. It would be easy to argue for or against, because it would be the whole thing, a complete description of the Europe that we wish for, whatever that wish might be. Note that I say ‘a constitution’, not ‘the constitution’, for in a way many of the moaners at Westminster have it right, just the wrong way around: the rejected constitution was too similar to the Lisbon treaty and the others that have gone before it. What we need for Europe is a constitution fundamentally rebuilt from the ground up, not plastered around the cracks in the existing structure. Furthermore – here’s a radical idea – we could actually ask the people of Europe how they’d like that Europe to be built. I’m not the biggest fan of focus group politics – I believe that it has led British politics to its current apathy fuelled stalemate – but there is a place for focus groups in every political system; when was the last time anyone heard of EU wide consultation on the structure of the European political system?

Well I've done my research now, and I can confirm that there was a consultation before the failed constitution, it was known as the European Convention and it consisted 'mainly of representatives of national parliaments, not only from existing member states but also from candidate countries, as well as representatives of heads of state and government.' Apparently it was tasked with consulting as widely as possible about the structure of the Union. I'm sure that they did consult 'as widely as possible', as long as the phrase is caveated with 'amongst other politicians'.

Of course Commissioners, members of national governments and probably MEPs would say that this is a complete consultation, as the consultation of the people happens through the process of electing the MEPs and national governments, who in turn nominate their commissioners (for now). However to say that is meaningless for two simple reasons: firstly, the approach to Europe as a policy in of and as of itself is so far down the list of priorities for voters in national elections as to be negligible; secondly, for the reasons that I shall expand upon later, elections of MEPs are met with even more apathy than National elections and are therefore usually hijacked by the lunatic fringe or voted on along national party lines. Obviously there are parts of Europe where the two above statements are not so accurate, but by and large (and most certainly in the UK) they hold sway.

The upshot of this is that the only people who might have access to the general public opinion are given little of it except by the most vocal Europhiles or Europhobes. This is not a balanced picture, and besides it only really affects the MEPs in any meaningful sense. So the people with the power to change things – the commissioners and their armies of bureaucrats – are so far removed from the people of Europe as to have no idea what they might or might not want, so they dream up any old nonsense that might get them onto the world stage and invited to more pointless conferences and then wave it in front of the Parliament who rubber stamp it, and the national governments, who water it down to a point where it is meaningless, before looking for some other flimsy idea to legislate over. The constitution was a failure because it was a pile of crap that no one wanted and even fewer people cared about. If only someone would have the balls to come up with a proper constitution for a proper EU someone might take enough of an interest to vote for it.

Unfortunately this is unlikely because the national governments prefer the unwieldy and crumblig structure that the Lisbon Treaty will stick another plaster over. We need some way to take the lead, take the power away from the national governements and the Comission and give it back to the people of Europe. Doing this would cause massive consternation amongst the national governments and the entrenched power systems of the EU (not to mention the right-wing media), but then real change has to be resisted somewhere.

Is it just me or...

I heard not so long ago that Tony Blair was considering running for president of the EU (the post is actually president of the European Council), and whilst this depressed me deeply, it seemed quite fitting in many ways. It seems that Tony Blair has reached that stage in his life where he is so completely divorced from reality that the only place for him really is somewhere like the committee rooms of European government. There he can continue the charade of his self-delusional self-belief, safely cosseted away from the evils of public opinion and the democratic process. Am I being too harsh? Possibly on the EU. Perhaps it is more democratic, more in touch with its constituency than I give it credit for, but that is not the perception. To most people, the governing structure of the EU is as opaque as the personal logic of Tony Blair.

Now I don't pretend to understand the structure of government of the EU completely myself, I don't pretend to be an expert on Europe, but it has always struck me as something one should take an interest in. It is, after all one of the three major forces of government in our lives.

I remember a few years ago that a group of Cornish fishermen were protesting against EU fishing quotas by sailing up the Thames to Westminster. This struck me as seeming quite odd at the time, because if the quotas were European, surely they should be protesting to the European Parliament (although I'm not sure one can sail a fishing boat all the way to Brussels) rather than Westminster. Now again, this may be due to my lack of understanding of the finer points of the power structures; perhaps the fishermen felt that they should make representations to the UK government because they select the most powerful UK representative in Europe: their commissioner. Perhaps the fishermen felt that it was easiest to make representations to Westminster because, like me, they are baffled by the labyrinthine complexity of the organisation that would have faced them in Brussels.

Whilst I cannot lay claim to being a expert on the EU, I think I can fairly justifiably say that anything so opaque cannot be very democratic. I am willing to be swayed on this, I am going to try and learn what it's all about, but I should make my starting position clear: I think that the EU is a fundamentally flawed and wholly undemocratic institution. So I'm going to try and learn what I can about it, partly by reading about it, partly by posing theories, and hopefully by getting into debate. I want to find ways that we can genuuinely make the EU something that the people of Europe are proud of, rather than a bureaucratic nuisance and drain on our resources. I'm not saying it's all bad by any means, I'm just sure it could be a whole lot better.