A new year, and we should be looking to the future. I’ve also (appropriately) been looking to the past, though, and pondering how little has changed.
Five years ago: Complaining about the nature of the EU debate and lengthy attempts to explain why the EU is not becoming a superstate (perennial and never-ending discussions, these – the latter covered in five lengthy parts last year: one, two, three, four, five)
Four years ago: Boredom with the EU constitution – which has since, of course, morphed into boredom with the Lisbon Treaty (over which we’re still having arguments, even though it’s now been passed…)
Three years ago: An attempt to explain my political outlook, having caused yet more confusion by not seeming to fall neatly into any of the usual categories, and not being overly consistent in approach. (Something that cropped up yet again just the other day.)
Two years ago: A decision to blog less often, in more depth (which I’ve stuck to more or less, more from laziness and boredom than concerted effort). A possible hint of the growing boredom.
One year ago: Some advice for new bloggers, which all still stands. Trying to pass the baton on to a new breed? Another expression of boredom with the whole thing? Quite possibly.
We now have a new decade, and a slightly reshaped EU – though so little has changed, I have no doubts that all the same arguments will continue. Because the same concerns that faced the EU at the start of the last decade continue to worry at the start of this one: How to reshape the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policies? Which of the near neighbours are going to be allowed to join the EU club, and when? How to deal with Russia? What is the EU’s role in the world? And – most importantly – what is the EU for?
I have a strange feeling I’ll be discussing the same old stuff in another five, ten years, and that we’ll hardly have moved on at all. And in any case, as I noted last year, I’m interested in politics, but I don’t CARE about politics. At the moment, there’s very little to interest me.
So, is there *anything* interesting to look forward to, or is this going to be the third January in a row (and the fifth out of the last six) where I enter the new year largely disillusioned with the principle subject of this blog?
Nosemonkey,
If you say that you are bored, I have to take you at your word. If you say that the European Union is boring, I don’t have to, even if many of the features you point out are correct: complexity, long and opaque processes, lack of direct democratic accountability.
Subjectively, the more I follow the British “discussion” about the EU, the more it feels like an interminable lament about a country still unreconciled with the membership it applied for in 1961 and the EU’s principal – and original – aim at deeper European integration.
Joining a club to play against your own team, is somewhat bewildering for outsiders, but only 13 per cent of the British population prefer an active and constructive role.
Continental discussions are, in general, more concerned with the EU as it is and how its policies should develop.
In its own small way, a blog is free to explore how the EU actually works for its citizens and to engage in cross-border discussion about policy choices without being hostage to particular interests.
There is plenty to write about, if you want to.
Happy New Year, Nosemonkey – and good blogging.
Picking up on Ralf’s point, one of my concerns is that, now that we are “post-Lisbon” and have a structure for the EU institutions, do we really have a vision of what we are trying to achieve?
It is clear that people in some of the newer entrant nations are unsure of what the EU is about. (I discount here the fact that the peoples of many older member states are kept in the dark over this issue). The uncertainty in some of the newer, Central European states, is such that their fairly recent democracies may be under threat – from hard-line “Putinists” (ie authoritarians).
In my view this is because, in those countries, the middle classes, producers of ideas and subversive propaganda in USSR days, was wiped out by stalinist “look alike” dictators. The result was that the general population were unable to respond to the opportunities and challenges of “democracy”, and of the EU in particular. Thus, whilst car factories, etc have been built, and infrastructure improved in countries such as Romania, the people of those countries are now unhappy to be in the EU. In other Central European, ex-USSR, countries the middle classes remained alive and active and have responded – almost effortlessly, it seems.
The net results of the differences can be seen in the different responses to the financial crisis. Countries without a resurgent middle class appear to have fared badly. Those where the middle classes again found their opportunity have generally fared much better. Did the middle classes of the latter hold to a vision of the future (which they were able to ‘sell’ to others, where the “sub-proletariat” of former were incapable of forming a coherent vision (perhaps through years of dependency on dictators)?
If the EU had/would have a clearer “vision” this would act as a rallying point, both for failing Central European member nations and for older members too?
May I wish you a Merry Christmas , Nosemonkey, and all the best for the New Year.
No Honestly. Please lie down and take a whiskey if that disorientates you.
If you are bored, I can only presume that it is because the project is going your way, but not as fast as you`d like it too. If you were against it, you wouldn`t be bored about it. Although if one thought the project was irreversible and permanent, one would be bored of it like people were in the Commie bloc.
If there was a referendum about it, you wouldn`t be bored. But after the result, you would prefer to be bored.
I suppose I should really wish you a boring New Year, as that seems best for a EUrophile.
Happy New Year! The EU, from the period of Maastricht to Lisbon, been through birth and childhood. It is now entering its political adolescence, another step towards political maturity, whatever that might be.
I expect the argument of whether the EU should start flexing its collective economic and foreign policy muscles, and if so in what form, to be thrashed out over the coming decade.
The question of Turkey’s future membership is also a debate that will cause controversy.
So don’t despair. I think you will be seeing an end to the tedious and endless questions of institutional reform and instead replaced with a more outwardly focused argument.
In other words, we will stop bickering about what the EU should be and instead bicker about what the EU should be doing.
I would say that the problem affecting both this blog, its owner and the entire EU commentariat, especially the various institutes and university departments studying the EU, is the same viz. the end of the era of institutional introspection. This is especially acute because of the cutbacks impacting on research budgets right across the Member States. (The old joke about knowing that something works in practice but wishing to know how it works in theory comes to mind as far as many areas of research were concerned).
There are elements of the future institutional working of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty which are worthy of further study. Examples would be the co-decision procedure and the increasing use of so-called “fast-track” procedures about which the House of Lords has raised legitimate concerns. Another is the whole area of the new regime for the delegated and implementing powers of the Commission. Still another, the coordination between the supranational and intergovernmental aspects of the EU’s external relations.
But by far the most important is the task of creating, not a European demos – that is a pipe-dream – but an understanding of how the EU will work under the Lisbon Treaty among the general interested population. The way to do so is, in my opinion, to follow the individual dossiers (EurActiv supplies all the information that one could wish for) and comment on what might be described their ‘popular’ aspects. A case in point is the package on financial regulation for a number of reasons. It represents a first major use of the new procedures and, coincidentally, the watershed issue (apart from the question of the EU budget) in the relations between the UK and the EU.
National parliaments are supposed to pick up the challenge. I have no faith that they will.
I do not know whether this is enough to re-whet Nosemonkey’s appetite, but worth considering. In a sense, the point is self-evident. The EU has become a unique form of delegated or cooperative federalism – not to be confused with federalism in the classical sense – and the need is to achieve at least the same level of public acceptance for ‘Brussels: as, for example, Westminster enjoys in the UK, or Washington in the US. As de Gaulle might say, ‘vaste programme’.
As an adjunct.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5764467a-ad28-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html
Larry Siedentop’s analysis is spot on but the solution that he proposes impractical.
Happy new year, Nosemonkey.
I am thankful to read your texts and feel motivated by the – well not ambition, but the underlying wish behind it all to make EU a union of the people. The looking back and forward piece is encouraging, shows a persons true engagement, thus is witnesses of a certain weariness. No wonder.
Here’s my belief. May it inspire! The European identity is to emerge from the meeting of nation cultures – just like in U.S.A. once did: But due to our deep national roots we will never leave where we came from. An European superstate ruling out nationalies within is an illusion in the minds of those who feel astranged beyond their national horizons. I believe it must be us to who believe in EU and see a greater picture – a greater cultural time and space” – to calm and invite those who feel threatened by the European thought (even though they may be ignorant, paranoid and arrogant to discuss with).
@ Jeppe Marsling.
You have put your finger on it. This is the conundrum that has to be resolved i.e. how does one develop a wider acceptance at a popular level of the EU while recognizing that what is at issue is not that of developing a demos in a classic sense? The EU is not a state, super or otherwise, and no citizen is being asked to choose his EU identity above his national and, indeed, regional identity.
But there would be less paranoia about if all accepted the simple fact that the EU has not yet reached that level of wider popular acceptance that is necessary to assure its future. For this to happen, what it is doing, and how it does it, has to be explained, with maximum popular participation.
@ DOCM: but in your last para you put Your finger on it.
How can it be explained to the Central Europeans who are suffering – both through their embrace of western excesses (credit and shopping) and their lack of access to full EU benefits, such as the CAP? The EU was their vision of a happier and wealthier life – which has not been realised. And they are reluctant to recognise their own part in bringing about their economic crisis. They have to feel unhappy with someone – and the EU is “it”. Now, it appears, they are seeking “strong” leaders – who (it seems) are not pro-EU.
So, who explains – and how?
Happy new Year, even If am a non-blogger, but I happen to start becoming a regular reader of this blog I fear… ;)
I think 2010 could be a rather interesting year for the EU, even if that affects to a large extend just more of the old institutional issues. The Lisbon treaty is reality, but it is going to be filled with life now and there is still a lot in the dark which will reveal itself slowly.
The EP and the Europoan Court of Justice got tremendous additional powers, that will impact not immediately but could change the way politics are made in the EU. The media have not even started to write about these significant changes as they seem to be all about faces, but thats only a part of the reforms and its not the largest one.
@ french derek
You need to check your facts. The Eurobarometer surveys do not support the East-West divide that you imagine exists.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm
As to credit and shopping, I was unaware that these are especially “West European” weaknesses.
When it comes to the CAP, the formal position of the UK is that it should be abandoned. Indeed, the UK insisted that CAP expenditure in the new Member States be excluded from the calculation of the UK rebate for the period 2007-2014. Most of the very poorer new EU countries think that expenditure on agriculture should be a priority. The economic argument (distorting effects etc.)against bumping them overnight to the full level of benefits was viewed as a strong one. The UK approach would have seen them with no benefits at all.
As to political developments in Member States, these are a matter for the countries concerned. They only become a problem for the EU if a country becomes in breach of its EU obligations in the matter of democratic principles, human rights etc.
There is absolutely no evidence that any of the new Member States is re-considering its membership of the EU. Countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic are making rapid progress and indeed, two, at least count, had adopted the euro. Long-standing EU members (notably Spain, Greece and Ireland: and the UK) are facing major economic difficulties.
In short, there is no need to explain because there is nothing – given the manner of your presentation – to be explained.
What the Eurobarometer survey reveals is that popular support for the EU is on a par with that for national institutions except that citizens have a much better grasp of how their national institutions function. That is my entire point.
@ DOCM Thank you for your detailed reply. First, my base information is from French journalists working in Central and Eastern Europe. Their reports note varied “modernisation” in the various countries covered by this geographical blanket. My views reflect, rather than repeat their assessments.
One thing that stands out from these various reports is hiw, in countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and elsewhere (sorry, I have lost track of all of the articles which I have read), it seems the 1989 “revolutions ” were more like palace revolutions”: ie previous communists suddenly became democrats. And, taking Bulgaria as an example, these “new” democrats keep themselves well-fed at the expense of the wider population outside Sofia.
In Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic the backlash has taken the form of a rise in nationalist (perhaps even racist) parties, who are noted as being anti-EU. That is not the same thing as what the people say, think, or even want (eg Eurobarometer). However, as previous leaders have shown, it is easy to lead the public, through extremist rhetoric. So, whilst there is no current anti-EU feeling amongst the general populations in these countries, if their expectations are not met, the extremists could harvest the antipathy that would follow.
Which brings me to the CAP. Thank you, again, for spelling out the UK position. However, I do feel that the UK could find itself isolated if it sought the phasing out of the CAP (as Charles Grant proposes). Not only do too many current beneficiaries want a continuation – if in a modified form – these are, as I noted, newer member countries wanting to share in the subsidies/grants/etc available via the CAP.
The debate is over what issues might present (and be worth researching/discussing further. My views were meant to feed ideas into that debate. However, I am genuinely pleased to accept your criticisms. (How else can one learn but from one’s mistakes?)
@ french derek.
I think that we may be at cross purposes. The journalists that you quote are probably correct. But the question that must be posed is whether dealing with the problem is a matter for the EU. My view is that it is not unless the countries concerned go outside the parameters they have collectively agreed to accept in the context of the Lisbon Treaty.
The members of the EU remain sovereign and, especially in relation to the maintenance of law and order, the previously existing and new treaties make clear that the EU has no role. The experience has been that membership alone has been instrumental to creating mature democracies. The alternatives are hardly enticing!
One could say, therefore, that our exchanges have clarified this point, hopefully to our joint satisfaction if not that of anybody else.
On UK policy in relation to the EU in general, the major problem is not just that is confused but it also has not been very successful. A feature of explaining this situation to the UK public – especially in the popular press – has been to find every possible fault with what is happening with the EU to avoid considering what may be going wrong at home.
I think that voices such as those of Charles Grant will find a wider audience in the coming years.
@DOCM Not to prolong our conversation, I was attempting to respond to the same issue you point to in your last para – getting the political powers (and general public, where necessary) committed to the EU, not just in the UK but in the wider area of the EU. eg France would never vote to leave the EU but my fellow citizens often betray their lack of understanding of the EU – for similar reasons to those you quote for the UK.
Sorry if I failed in my explanations.
I don’t understand how anyone could be bored as the EU enters a new decade.
There are so many exciting developments going on at verious levels.
just to mention a few:
How will the EU President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs shape their offices?
What will happen to Turkey’s membership aspirations?
Can the EU provide solutions to climate change and its expected consequences such as increased migration?
And certainly the question how the EU will respond to regional integration projects pushing for deeper integration elsewhere in the world such as ASEAN?
Maybe Eu is a superstate: But it can only be seen as such as long as the balance between the nation states and the union as such is – in balance. The unionification – or to be less formalistic: the unification – is suppose to happen through the nations, from the peoples – closer and closer, step by step. But it seems as if the nationally elected and appointed EU-politicians since the origin of EU, have been unable to actually SEE this happening: Instead a phramework of programmes were supposed to start the cultural unification among the peoples – as if they were going to take over and make this process their own at some magic point. We – the EU citizens – were, are all suppose to show the unification, the union, come true culturally, but terribly few have step ahead. To the voters EU remains “down there” in Bruxelles, Strassbuorg – not in their hearts.