| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Philip Stephens: Europe clings to past |
| 2004-01-16 |
| EFL and paid subscription required, Financial Times A constitution derailed, institutions at war about economic management, a nagging rupture over the transatlantic alliance: times are not easy for admirers of the European Union. This year was supposed to have been a celebration of the new Europe of 25. Instead it risks turning into a painful lament for the old certainties of a divided continent. Clinging to the past, the politicians are recoiling from a different future. There is more to all this than the pique of a weakly-led and soon-to-depart European Commission. ... The complex paradox of this unique supranational institution is that the Union is strong when the constituent governments are strong; and weak when they are weak. When Germany, France and the rest are brimming with confidence, the pooling of sovereignty in Brussels is seen as adding to their national authority: the national and supranational are mutually reinforcing. When governments are weak, though, the EU is cast as a zero sum game. Any gain in the Union’s authority is seen as a diminution of precious national prerogatives. Well, yes - it is. Duh. So the explanation of the present crisis of confidence starts with the poor economic performance of the past few years, above all within the eurozone. You can take your pick of the explanations. A myopic European Central Bank, the refusal of governments to embrace economic reform, ageing populations and a culture of complacent contentment are on most people’s list. The political impact, though, is incontrovertible. Weak economies sap the authority of national leaders; imagination and courage make way for an obsession with political survival. The Union is hardly blessed anyway with strong leaders. France’s Jacques Chirac, dismayed by the Union’s new geography, is as mercurial as he is self-regarding. Gerhard Schröder seems one of those leaders for whom being there touches the limits of ambition. As for Silvio Berlusconi, well, Italy’s premier-cum-media magnate speaks eloquently for himself. There was a time when Tony Blair might have claimed Europe’s leadership. But, for all that he has made Britain’s case in Europe, the prime minister has failed to make Europe’s case in Britain. We knew the moment had passed when he greeted the collapse of last month’s Brussels summit with the relief of a leader running scared of the Eurosceptics. The frailties of the leaders have been amplified by the destabilising impact of enlargement. The entry of the former communist states has shifted the centre of gravity eastwards. No one quite knows how this shift in the continent’s political geometry will play out. What seems certain - and this explains the deep insecurity in Paris - is that the Franco-German motor is no longer a sufficient source of political energy. Hence Mr Chirac’s enthusiasm for trilateralism, even if it means bringing Mr Blair into the Franco-German fold. Others talk of a still closer Franco-German union as the basis for a new The change in the transatlantic partnership with the US makes this all the more complicated. The divisions over Iraq spoke to a shift that began more than a decade earlier with the end of the cold war. There had always been differences about the relationship with Washington - France’s Gaullism co-existed with German Atlanticism. But the alliance was firmly rooted in the US security guarantee and in a common understanding that America’s interest lay in a united Europe. The disappearance of the Soviet menace and the preference of the US administration for coalitions of the willing over fixed alliances have shattered the old understandings. in other words, we won’t let you hobble us in quite the old way anymore. Mr Schröder has slipped Washington’s reins, while the entry of the former communist states of central Europe has brought into the Union a new, hard-edged Atlanticism. Mr Blair and Mr Chirac offer competing visions of Europe’s place in a global system defined by the American hyper-power. None of Europe’s challenges is insuperable. But neither are they susceptible to institutional fixes. The Union needs its new constitution, not least to give coherence to foreign and security policy. But see below - why does the union need a single foreign and security policy? It must also rebuild the authority of the European Commission. But, much more importantly, Europe’s leaders must come to terms with the Union’s present purpose. The original ambition - to reconcile Germany and France and to shut out the communist bloc from the continent’s prosperity - belongs to another age. That in itself testifies to the Union’s success. On this argument, there is no need for the union any longer. ... The Union eventually will agree its new constitution. But what it really needs is political leadership. Stephens almost grasps the problem, but then backs away quickly. |
| Posted by:rkb |
| #5 "The Union eventually will agree its new constitution. But what it really needs is political leaders" Well, according to this other article on rantburg today US joins Iraqis to seek UN role for interim rule, it's clear that the EU needs to seek a UN role to establishing their leaders and constitution. |
| Posted by: B 2004-1-16 3:39:30 PM |
| #4 An unelected, socialist government dominated by corrupt, statist elites. Those who think the |
| Posted by: Nero 2004-1-16 1:50:55 PM |
| #3 the Europeans have thousands of years of history and culture That's the very reason the eu is doomed. Too many prejudices, too much tribal hate, too many wars and petty feuds fought by them. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-1-16 12:00:05 PM |
| #2 Fact is the Europeans have thousands of years of history and culture and not everyone is ashamed of it and hoping to whitewash everything in a homogenized new Europe. Others might look at their history of wars with the Germans and French trying to take over Europe, and wonder why they should hand soveriegnty over to them now. Can't say I blame them. I think a common market is probably a good idea but unification shouldn't be rushed. What's the hurry? |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-16 11:24:12 AM |
| #1 Sorry, forgot to change the category to Europe. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-1-16 11:08:27 AM |