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.