Uncategorized | Columnist Service

Opinion

EUROPE MOVES FURTHER FROM ITS CITIZENS

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LISBON, Jul 9 2007 (IPS) - The European Council met recently in Brussels to restart the European Union process, but the meeting was far from a success, writes Mario Soares, ex-president and ex-prime minister of Portugal. For a start, Soares writes in this analysis, they are putting into effect the previous treaties (which the Constitutional Treaty should replace) and two clauses that significantly alter the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which will now be called the Treaty on the Operation of the Union. The word \’\’constitution\’\’ is now taboo and has been flatly banished from the two texts as if a curse. It is indefensible that European governments, out of fear and shallowness, are opposed to assuming a European identity. Federalism, as understood in the old Constitutional Plan, simply disappears. If this is the case, how will it be possible to stimulate and develop a real European citizenship? The gap between European citizens and institutions has broadened considerably. This is a dramatic shift the negative consequences of which will be felt very soon. Meanwhile all the European states know –however much they may deny it– that by themselves, whoever they are, including the largest, like Germany, they have neither the influence nor the size to compete successfully in today\’s globalised world. The European Political Union (with Turkey, of course) is indispensable and represents the most original and promising political project of the 20th century for the 21st century, and one day it will eclipse short-sighted nationalist egoism and win over certain European politicians.

But was it really the success proclaimed by the political marketing blitz that regularly crowns European meetings?

I fear it wasn’t, from what I understood from a careful reading of the ”Mandate Plan of the Intergovernmental Conference”. The Reform Treaty, as it is now called, is not a mini-accord and has not been simplified, as French President Sarkozy claims. It is very long and very complex.

For a start, they are putting into effect the previous treaties (which the Constitutional Treaty should replace) and two clauses that significantly alter the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which will now be called the Treaty on the Operation of the Union. Add to this the fact that neither the EU Treaty nor the Treaty on the Operation of the EU is constitutional in nature. The word ”constitution” is now taboo and has been flatly banished from the two texts as if a curse. Moreover, the designation Minister of Foreign Affairs will be changed to EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Apparently the word “minister” carries the connotation of government and state, terms that are also taboo for the Union. The same is happening with the terms law and framework law, which will be renamed regulation, directive, and decision. All are glaring examples of opportunistic political dodging and reveal a lack of any vision of the future.

At this point — and we are only at the beginning of the ”Mandate Project”– interested readers will already be confused and bored. What will happen to regular European citizens who honestly want to understand the laws underpinning this Europe that they live and believe in?

It should be recognised that changes in terminology are in no way innocent. Quite to the contrary, they are the most overt expression of Euro-sceptic and anti-EU thought, which is seized with horror at the thought of a Political and Social Europe, and sees the Union exclusively as a vast area of free exchange, a market, with a strict financial policy and poorly co-ordinated economic, social, and fiscal policies. How far we are from the “Europe of Citizens”!

The text of the Mandate, as I read it, represents a capable exercise in political hypocrisy and constitutes a grave capitulation to British Euro-scepticism, allowing for the disappearance of the Union’s symbols (the flag, hymn, motto, etc.) when it is clear that these symbols are essential manifestations of identity. Those “in the know” however, wink to us and say, ”Don’t worry, 80 percent of the content is the same.” In truth, this was never written and nor is it true.

What is indefensible is that European governments, out of fear and shallowness, are opposed to assuming a European identity. Federalism, as understood in the old Constitutional Plan, simply disappears. If this is the case, how will it be possible to stimulate and develop a real European citizenship? The gap between European citizens and institutions has broadened considerably. This is a dramatic shift the negative consequences of which will be felt very soon. Wait and see.

How then can the EU forge a global role in the international arena –which is so important for the world– when the powers of the nation states are being knowingly strengthened (and it is those nation states that find it increasingly difficult to establish consensus) and when the competencies of the Union are being blurred as it becomes an ambiguous and diffuse entity which fears stating what it is and where it is going. Is all this a new form of the ”political transparency” that so many European leaders have been calling for ?

Meanwhile all the European states know –however much they may deny it– that by themselves, whoever they are, including the largest, like Germany, they have neither the influence nor the size to compete successfully in today’s globalised world.

In reality what happened at the Brussels summit was that two member states blocked the necessary movement forward of the EU project: the UK (which, as is well known, never wanted it) and Poland (for reasons of circumstance, though using an unacceptable justification). While they certainly have the right to say what they want and to be respected, blocking the progress of the rest of the nations is unacceptable. This is the real issue.

The Franco-German engine – which it is said has been restarted, and let us hope that is the case– decided to give in to British pressure though 18 states (out of 27) had already ratified the Constitutional Treaty and a few others -including Ireland and Portugal- were inclined to do so. The question is: does it make sense that two countries are blocking the progress that 20, or even 25, others support, whether enthusiastically or not.

Jacques Delors, twice president of the European Commission, wrote in the Nouvel Observateur that ”Europe has always progressed in this manner, two steps forward and one step back.” But I fear that this time the two steps forward are less substantial, and less politically important, than the huge step backward that was taken in Brussels. However, and I say this as a convinced Europeanist, let’s give it time.

The European Political Union (with Turkey, of course) is indispensable. It represents the most original and promising political project of the 20th century for the 21st century, and one day it will eclipse short-sighted nationalist egoism and win over certain European politicians. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

 
Republish | | Print |

Related Tags



the final offer pdf