What the European Union faces now is not a crisis over the issue of its very existence – the EU had learned how to steer safe of dangerous waters of controversial issues. However, such navigation will not take it to meet the challenge across the Atlantic. What the European Union faces now is a crisis of legitimacy, best reflected in the lack of democratic rules in the Union’s endeavors. I argue that the best, and indeed, only way for the EU to play an important role in the world is to adopt the concept of two-speed Europe.
On the surface the EU looks democratic. The members of the Parliament are elected in equal elections throughout the EU, chosen in varying numbers in accordance to the given country’s population. There is an independent judiciary (surprisingly independent given the often-cited Franco-German pressures), which in matters regulated or overseen by the EU, maintains the final voice for European citizens who feel that their rights are either abridged or denied. There is no clear executive, with power oscillating between the commissioners, presidency countries, and other officers, yet it seems to work fine even in these conditions.
Where does the crisis of the EU finds its roots? The single most critical impediment to the development of the Union stems from the gargantuan number of opinions, ideals, and views clashing each day in Brussels and Strasbourg, some questioning the simplest issues of the day, and some the core foundations of the Union. The Founding Fathers in America understood they could not attain political stability and effective leadership with so much, what they referred to as, “faction”. In order to prevent that they did the only thing they could to preserve the Union: they deferred much power to the states, with just a few areas where the federal government was to take lead, namely, for example in common defense, interstate commerce, and making sure Americans in every state are protected like citizens in other states (later especially, equal rights).
How is that relevant to the EU? “Faction” and unclear responsibilities cloud and distort the image of the EU in minds of most Europeans who see EU responsible only for cheaper abroad text messaging and restrictions to the shapes of cucumbers.
The only way to re-legitimize the EU and make it move forward is to adopt the two-speed Europe concept. It holds that Europe should have its “core”, which will be integrating faster than the other countries, which for one reason or another would not like to integrate further. Now we have a situation in which one country can block the decision of all the other 24 states, as was shown with the rejection of the Constitution by France and Belgium, and more recently, by failing to ratify the new treaty by Ireland. This is probably the most undemocratic measure of seemingly democratic governmental action in the world. All precedents in history where unanimity was the manner of business failed miserably. Now we have a situation where citizens of Spain suffer from the decisions of the Irish, who do not wish to integrate. It is as absurd for the other side – why would the Irish integrate just because Spain is integrating? This blade cuts both ways, the willing and unwilling, in the end leaving both disgruntled (Ireland is repeatedly being pushed to integrate). It is almost authoritarian. No wonder conservatives see the EU as another Soviet Union, there are reasons for that.
It has to be established that Ireland is free to stay at the right lane of integration if she wants, there has to be liberty for her, as for the states who wish to come together more effectively. Two-speed Europe means democracy. Freedom to select in which lane the country is going to go on is a inalienable right of its elected leaders. If a “core” Europe develops, it’s going to be able to address critical issues of energy independence, in order to be free to make good foreign policy, and of a European army, an area where Europe will continue to lag behind the US and be disregarded as a less important partner if it does consolidate its military budget. In my opinion, these are the most important issues facing the EU. The core will have an independent budget of the other nations, and the countries in it will receive a more generous share of each other’s money, while the “outlying” countries will have to do with what they themselves contribute. No one if forced to anything, there is no tyranny. Each member state integrates at a level it finds necessary. In a long run, the “core” Europe, if successful, will be able to lure other of its members into its “core”, thus expanding more naturally than it does not where many countries admitted are hardly ready to be in the EU (the issue of deputies in Brussels who are staunchly against the EU, and at the same time take out generous pensions and privileges is a philosophical conundrum).
The Union has to be legitimate in order to establish its position in a world that is calling for international unity by being an exemplar of cooperation. In order for that to happen, though, it has to become democratic first. Without democracy, there is no legitimacy.
Tags: democracy, EU, Europe, legitimacy
November 30, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
Making your postulates a practical reality requires profound restructuring of the EU, both on technical and mental grounds. I support federal approach to Europe’s political architecture, though it is not evident that 2-speed solution will be eagerly adopted by the primary participants of the Union. The EU’s contemporary state stems from failed attempts to forge a political unity in the past – economic integration in minds of its creators was bound to be the stimulus for further integration in political terms – unity was going to ’spill-over’ from economic spheres into political. This did not occur – and divisions in today’s Europe are the proof that the economy has a limited impact on political interests. Similarily, it is not obvious that an ‘upper body’ of integration will spill oover the others. The key issue at hand today is an enormous amount of various interests of the states that in many situations are in conflict with each other – EU’s policy towards Russia being a principal example. Establishing a 2-speed Europe in my view will not provide legitimacy – if one body is to be integrated further, who and how would express EU’s position in foreign affairs? Does further integration justify a ‘higher’ body to have a decisive voice on these issues over the states, which do not participate? How to accomplish a better state of affairs when combining unity with exclusion? I do not however think that a 2-speed Europe will not improve current situation, though I think that the costs of this measure may overrun the benefits – dividing further tomorrow, a divided Europe of today will be a test for its very existence – which will be hard to pass.