United States of Europe?

JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI
The Kathmandu Post

NOV 09 - Upon our arrival at the Heathrow Airport recently, an immigration officer asked me some routine questions. He wanted to know how much my stay would cost me; I replied in Euros rather than Pounds. Perhaps fatigue and having lived in Netherlands recently were to be blamed for the slip. The officer frowned and said: Over here, Pound Sterling is the currency, and we are proud that way.

Britain has maintained a relative distance from some of the European Union’s (EU) common policy, through opt-outs. But there is a growing debate within UK and other member countries on the extent of integration, although mainstream politicians want to clearly avoid it. The Lisbon treaty which will come into force from Dec. 1, following the ratification by Ireland and Czech Republic has triggered fresh discussions. Both Labour and the Conservative Parties in Britain had promised a referendum on the EU constitution. Labour reneged on their promise sometime ago. But the Conservatives who have been jumpy on the issue in the past were buying time to quietly break the news of their change of heart, until they were forced last week after the Czech president signed off on the Treaty.

Now that all ratifications are in on the treaty, Eurocrats may have succeeded in creating a slight distraction, as all eyes are now fixed on the newly created the post of EU President and foreign minister. Tony Blair’s ambitions of becoming the first president of Europe may have been sabotaged. The Conservative Party, which is likely to win the elections, next year, has already opposed Blair’s candidacy.

There is more: Britain’s half-hearted presence within the EU has been frustrating for other EU leaders. It seems British leaders can’t imagine themselves away from the Anglo-Saxon bloc, where they are happy to play second fiddle to the Americans. According to the Guardian, last week the French Minister for Europe, Pierre Lellouche came down heavily on the British Conservative party leaders, and described their policy as ‘autistic’ and blamed them for ‘castrating Britain’s position within Europe.’ “Nobody is going to play with the institutions again. It is going to be, take it or leave it and they should be honest and say that.”

Conflicting impulses

Europe’s problems are manifold: Controlling immigration, maintaining social security amid falling productivity, salvaging some lost glory as the continent where the entire ‘modernisation’ project began. But that’s not all, the core problem that haunts Europe is what it wants to become? Does it want to remain a loose union or push for more integration to become a strong union with federal features? Surely the failed EU Constitution and the current Lisbon Treaty have provided a blueprint, but do the people agree with what the Eurocrats have in mind?

Germany, a key driving force for a stronger Union, like other Euro-heartland countries, remains beset by its own conflicting impulses. The political establishment clearly wants more integration, and was instrumental in drafting the Lisbon Treaty after the Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters. Critics allege that the Treaty is a mere repackaging of the rejected Constitution, and they insist that it makes a mockery of the public opinion. The biggest criticism is of the EU is exactly that: the democratic deficit. The European Commission, the executive branch, is not an elected body and its office bearers are not accountable directly to the people. The Lisbon Treaty aims to grant more power to the European Parliament to counter some of the criticism. Critics aren’t happy though. They argue that no amount of patch-work can bridge the fundamental democratic gap within a transnational superstructure like EU.

European Union (EU) is surely a model for political and economic integration, although not a perfect one yet, nevertheless, it is one of a kind. But within the continent the ranks of skeptics are swelling, and even some ‘Euro-believers’ fear the rise of a super-state that would swallow sovereignty of the member states and would eventually march on the path of federalism. While in Nepal, the debate is on devolution of power, here in Europe, the debates are evolving around the extent of integration within a supranational instrument.

In June, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled that many of the competence handed over to the Brussels under the Lisbon Treaty will remain a sovereign German competence. The 8 judges involved also argued that the Lisbon Treaty is merely an international treaty of cooperation. The ruling effectively asked the government to consult the people through a referendum if it were to accept the treaty as a constitutional document. The very thing the treaty was designed to do: to avoid promised national referendum in Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and Britain, and other countries where the national constitution stipulates such a provision before the transfer of sovereignty.

The elections for European parliament last year saw in the rise of number of right-wing Member of European Parliament (MEPs), some of whom ran on the platform of working towards abolishing the Union. Of course, it is silly to take a politician’s rhetoric at the face value and seriously believe that Brussels would be powered down; nevertheless their electoral victory is a measure of public’s frustration and resentment with Brussels performance. Right-wing stance may seem ludicrous but it is symptomatic of Europe’s burgeoning problem that could undermine the vision of united Europe.

The failure of Eurocrats to communicate the achievements of their project is equally frustrating. The transnational nature of the set-up allows very little direct contact with people. The democratic deficit is clearly a two-edged sword. Lack of it is equally problematic as its presence may be to the politicians. During a visit to Brussels in April this year, a spokesman for the EU Competition Commissioner, and some journalists who had gone native (by virtue of having spent too many years in Brussels), bitterly complained about how the national press treats Brussels: When everything goes fine, it is out of the press radar, but when something goes wrong national politicians rub it on Brussels, and EU gets hammered badly by the press.