EU Chaos or a failing project
March 27, 2009 by Ken
Filed under EU Ministry for Propaganda, The Constitution of the EU, The EU
It would seem that Clive Mathews is trying to argue that those of us who question the EU are simply nutty conspiracy theorists who base our abhorrence of this construct on 50 year old quotes of long dead fathers of the EU.
As I said in a previous post that argument is the classic straw man, as we do not base our eurscetisism on the plans of Monnet and Shuman or what they said about the creation of a United States of Europe . The clear fact is we do not need to do so as we have so much evidence that confirms the only direction of the EU is towards further and continual unification of the member states. See sidebar for more modern quotes to the same effect perhaps these will be more acceptable to Clive ?
For goodness sake Clive just read the preamble of the treaties these make the case clearly enough even for a dedicate Europhobe to understand, the preambles set out clearly the intentions of the project, to try to argue that there is some other end position in the face of this is to bury your head in the sand.
RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with
the establishment of the European Communities,DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history,
their culture and their traditions,DESIRING to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the
institutions so as to enable them better to carry out, within a single institutional
framework, the tasks entrusted to them,RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to
establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions
of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a single and
stable currency,DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into
account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the
accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental
protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration
are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the
progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence
in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European
identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe
and in the world,RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and
security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in
accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union,RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples
of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity,IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,
Clive says all he sees is chaos, when all he is really seeing is nothing more than evidence of an uncompleted task, there is nothing in the apparent chaos that point to a different road the direction is clear. I do not see that anyone would gain much by waiting to see the end result that would be to ignore the reality of what is happening today. Rather let us see some real moves away from the endpoint so clearly illustrated in the preambles.
Clive raises the idea that the founding fathers of the Project have no influence on today`s EU but then argues that the principle of subsidiarity as evidence of there being a different end point on the table.
Unfortunately given his argument he seems to have missed the fact that the principal of subsidiarity was the ineffectual political device invented by lifelong communist known as the Godfather of the project Altiero Spinelli and has only procedural and symbolic significance, in other words its only use is one of propaganda.
John Bercow MP said of the Principal
At best, it is a sop to those concerned with the preservation of self government; at worst, it is a cloak which seeks to disguise the ever increasing arrogation of powers to the institutions of the European Union.
He then goes on to ask
What does the Article say and what does it really mean ?
In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance of the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.”
Two objections to this immediately arise. First, the Article is not saying that action will be taken at the lowest level, as its supporters claim, but rather that the Community shall act if it judges it necessary to do so.
Secondly, if there is a dispute between the European Union and a Member State as to which should be empowered to act, it is justiciable by the European Court of Justice. It is not an impartial arbiter but a body which is committed to European integration and which prides itself on a ‘dynamic’ approach to EU law.
In the Court’s hands, application of the law has often been replaced by its invention. This hardly inspires confidence in the likely efficacy of subsidiarity.
Moreover, it can be argued that the notion of subsidiarity, far from being a tool of decentralisation, is in fact an admission that powers rest with the European state and that it will decide which of them it delegates.Anyone tempted to dismiss such a notion as the paranoia of euro sceptics should remember the verdict of the former President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, as long ago as 1991. Referring to subsidiarity, he said “It only makes sense in a federal approach.”
Yet here we see in answer to a simple question which of the Treaties have returned a single power to the member states all Clive can come up with is Altiero Spinelli`s confedence trick, so far from proving a break with the past he actually enforces the relevance of the Founding Fathers of the project to the EU we see today.
OK, a lot of stuff here (and we’re going to end up confusing ourselves, I fear), but I’ll try and take it point by point…
1) My point is that the repeated failures of the last ten years show that whatever the current direction is (you think it’s towards a superstate/super government, I don’t), it isn’t working – the EU is standing still. You see the EU as still standing on the same path, even if it hasn’t moved forward (and even though we don’t know where that path was heading), I see it as faffing about trying to work out which direction it should be heading in.
2) This I disagree with utterly – and that you are still restating this point seems to show that you’ve missed my fundamental question. You are simply stating “we are heading towards the superstate” as if it is fact while singularly failing to answer the charge that the EU has failed in every effort to get a major new treaty through since the late 1990s, and therefore is at best stalled. Nice failed to achieve what the most enthusiastic europhiles wanted it to back in 2001 when there were only 15 member states; we now have 27, and both the constitution and Lisbon have similarly failed (and even if Lisbon DOES end up somehow coming into force – which I still doubt – it is still far, far away from what superstatist europhiles wanted to see passed).
3) Again, I acknowledged a while ago that if you look at Nice, the Constitution and Lisbon specifically searching for clauses that *could* be interpreted as advancing a superstate, of course you can – not least because they all mention “integration”, which *could* (obviously) one day lead to one giant state structure. But surely you can see that all of them – and Maastricht and Amsterdam and all the rest for that matter – are a very, very long way away from actually creating this superstate? Passing any of these treaties would not – COULD not – turn the EU into a superstate without several more treaties following them. And, fundamental to all this – national vetoes (27 of them) remain in place on substantive issues such as further institutional integration.
(As for the Wheeler court case vs. the German ones – they aren’t comparible. Germany has a solid, clear written constitution; the British constitution is far less black and white, and Wheeler was in any case trying to establish in law that election manifesto promises are legally binding (something that has never been the case). Wheeler brought his case largely to drum up publicity for his cause; the German anti-Lisbon campaigners, however, have a real chance of winning.)
4) The point on the definition of federal is precisely that it can mean any number of things – but that the precise nature of the EU’s type of federalism is not yet set. If you want another definition, the Oxford Dictionary of Politics entry on federalism begins “The term suggests that everybody can be satisfied (or nobody permanently disadvantaged) by nicely combining national and regional/territorial interests within a complex web of checks and balances between a general, or national, or federal government on the one hand, and a multiplicity of regional governments on the other” – the most important phrase here, of course, is “checks and balances”. The central, federal government prevents the national/regional governments going mental and vice versa.
The reason the distinction is made between federal and confederal when it comes to the EU is precisely because the EU is so minimally advanced down the federal route – despite the claims of some eurosceptics that it has a flag (which it doesn’t – the circle of stars is actually the flag of the Council of Europe), that it has citizens (who have been granted rights, but no real obligations) etc. and that these are the hallmarks of a state. The definition of what makes a state is subject to even more intense debate in the world of political philosophy than the term federal, however, so it’s largely subjective. “Confederal”, however, means a rather looser grouping of individual states than a federation – often characterised by far stronger individual/national identities and a retention of control over taxation: as is the case with EU member states, just as with the Cantons of the Swiss confederation.
So when you say that “The eventual political form of that United Europe is secondary to the desirability, or not of a united Europe” I cay no – that’s *entirely* wrong. Until we know what is meant by “a united Europe” how can we possibly judge if this is desirable or not?
5) The whole point of the treaties is actually to make co-operation between European states as efficient as possible. *Some* reckon that a grand superstate along the model of the USA is the best way of doing this, but the majority of people involved in drawing up these treaties (of which there are tens of thousands of civil servants and polititicans and pressure-groups of all persuasians from all countries) reckon that this is a step far too far.
Likewise, you keep insisting that “not a single power has been returned”, and yet since Maastricht – and in every subsequent treaty (passed or not) since, the subsidiarity principle has been enshrined in what the EU is doing. It hasn’t always worked as I would like, for sure, but this means that – by EU treaty law – decisions are meant to be taken *at the most appropriate level*, and that this level should always be “as closely as possible to the citizen”, as well as that “constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level”. In other words – and the slowness of the transformation is one of my major gripes with the EU, as well as yet more evidence of its stalled nature – since 1992 the EU has been signed up to the idea that centralised decision-making should be the *exception*, not the rule. The precise opposite of a drive towards a superstate, in other words.
(By the by, your 6th form debating society trick of “as you use the term failures you are accepting the concept of a united Europe!” is a nonsense – and I hope you know it. Nice *failed* to get agreement on changes to the way the EU is run – specifically CAP payments, which still primarily go to France – ahead of the 2004 expansion to 25 member states; both the constitution and Lisbon have *failed* to get passed. That is all I mean by the word, quite obviously.)
I am not accepting that there has been no forward movement since 1993, Maastricht itself set down the framework in several areas and these have been steadily built upon. To mention just two areas, there is the adoption of the Euro which is a vast centralising measure, and the European Arrest Warrant.
To try to argue the project has stalled or that there is some sort of debate about the general direction is frankly blatant nonsense. The argument seems to be it is not going as fast as some would want, but the point remains there is no alternative on the table and no reversal of any moves move towards a united Europe. They might not get everything the want but each bite of the cherry gives them a bit more, that is why we have so many treaties it is becoming ridicules. To use your term the EU is moving forward along its path it is certainly not standing still trying to work out the direction.
Sorry I do not accept that there is any doubt of the eventual destination of the project this has been stated time and time again by those who are pushing the project onwards and each treaty does move power from the member states to the central government. Are you like most of the British politicians in the major parties going to continue to make the same tired old arguments until the project is completed?
Wheeler; you are right in so far as the cases are not comparable and I hope you are right about the outcome of the German cases. I was not actually comparing the two situations in that manner, rather I was expressing the point that both Wheeler and the German cases were brought by outsiders as challenges to their own government’s actions over agreeing this treaty. This does not indicate a change of direction for the EU only a problem if the German court rules for the outsiders.
Federalism (national and regional/territorial interests) the federal system presupposes an overarching central government. One of the definitions to what makes a state is that it would be allowed to join state bases international organisations if Lisbon is ratified the EU will be allowed to do so. Control over taxation well that is another area where the EU is making advances isn’t it, we seem to be stuck in a bit of a debating rut where you do not accept what you see and do not accept what those who are pushing forward further integration tell you. The framework has been built all they are now doing is building it is not true to say the EU has not interest in tax it is extremely interested and is continually pushing the boundaries.
The whole point of these continual treaties is to keep changing the rules and to keep moving power away from the member states it is not a matter of cooperation between states but the rules that government the central authority of the EU and its member states and the balance of power between the EU and its member states.
Sorry that argument won’t hold water; Niece failed to get agreement on CAP payments so we have to have a constitution and now Lisbon if all these did was to sort out the CAP payments there would be no debate, as it is neither the Constitution nor Lisbon sort out the CAP payments.
The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
extended QMV in employment ;
social exclusion;
free movement of persons
special treatment for foreign nationals;
public health;
equal opportunities
countering fraud;
customs co-operation;
data protection
It added new provisions on social policy
It added a new “ flexibility” clause,
It transferred much of the decision-making on JHA (including asylum and
immigration) from Pillar 3 to Pillar 1.
It stepped up co-operation on internal security matters.
It extended co-decision.
The CFSP was developed, including the creation of the Union’s “High
Representative for the common foreign and security policy
It incorporated the Schengen Agreement
The Treaty of Nice (2001)
New Protocol on Enlargement was adopted.
Institutional changes, mainly in preparation for enlargement:
Commission President was given more power to manage the
Commission, and to force the resignation of an individual Commissioner
A re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers to strengthen the
position of the larger member states.
The larger member states would give up their right to a 2nd
Commissioner.
Moved European Council meetings from country holding the Presidency to Brussels.
,Eurojust, established.
Establishment of an advisory Social Protection Committee
QMV in the Council of Ministers extended to over 30 more Articles
The EP’s powers of co-decision are extended to 10 more Articles
Formalisation” of “Enhanced Co-operation”
I left a fairly lengthy comment responding to this yesterday, but it seems to have vanished. Had quite a few links in it, so possibly ended up in your spam folder?
Anyway the gist of it was:
1) I’m not accusing you of being a nutty conspiracy theorist at all (though there are a few of those knocking around the anti-EU camp, you can’t deny it…) – I just genuinely don’t understand how you can think that the EU is still heading down the superstate route after the repeated failures of the last decade.
2) Just because a few hardcore europhiles like Verhofstadt seem to want a superstate, and just because a few people identify some of the recent treaties as being stepping-stones on that path, doesn’t mean that this is what is happening. I could also find a number of quotes from other sources arguing exactly the opposite (quite a few hardcore pro-EU types have referred to the Lisbon Treaty as a step backwards, with a number of europhile superstatists bemoaning the lack of progress and entrenchment of national power, among other complaints).
3) You quote the preamble to the Lisbon Treaty as an example of how we’re heading to a superstate. You do realise that the Lisbon Treaty hasn’t come into force yet, right? And not just because of the Irish referendum result – there’s also the challenge in the German constitutional court. Lisbon itself is a prime example of the lack of progress of those EU types in favour of a superstate – it’s the (in my view) failed bodged compromise rehash of the failed and unpopular Constitution, which was itself necessary thanks to the failure of the bodged compromise that was the Treaty of Nice – Lisbon is still trying to fix the same problems that Nice was attempting to solve when its descussions kicked off in the late 1990s. That’s a good ten years or more of stalemate. Hardly the stuff of an advancing superstate, surely?
4) There’s also the question of interpretation of terminology. You seem to see “federal” as being the same as “superstate” (a common assumption among British eurosceptics in particular). “Federal”, however, can mean any number of things; key to the idea, however, is the *lack* of overwhelming central control – precisely the opposite of the superstate bogeyman. You also identify “integration” and “co-operation” with being steps on a path to such a superstate – as I’ve said, I accept that that is a possibility, but I see it as being highly unlikely. Even if Lisbon DOES come into force, national vetoes will remain in pretty much every substantive area – as long as less enthusiastic countries like Britain, Denmark, the Czech Republic (and increasing numbers of eastern European member states) remain part of the EU, their vetoes ensure that a superstate remains an impossibility, no matter how many europhile superstatists there may be in other member states.
So come on: rather than pick a few quotes from individuals with limited influence while (seemingly deliberately) misinterpreting what I’m actually arguing, please just answer me this one, simple question – how can you look at the failure of every attempted EU treaty since the late 1990s and say that we’re marching down the path towards a superstate? I simply don’t get it. There has been no significant progress in European integration (that I can see) since Maastricht – and that was 17 years ago.
Sorry I did not read the first bit duh! I cannot find your previous comment so it looks as if you are right it ended up as spam probably if it had more than three links? sorry for the deletion! I will adjust the spam link limit.
1) Superstate is not really the end point, super government is, everything as we see remains the same the only difference is that the controlling power is passed to the EU level. This has the effect we are already witnessing of moving ever more policy areas outside the national political debate, as it forces the parties to meet EU agreements when formulating their policies, to do otherwise would require a change to the EU Treaties and breaking the EU rules in the Acquis, and would probably end in leaving the EU. The fact that you allude to failures in the past ten years is indicative of the one track and one direction.
2) But as I understand your argument it is that the founding fathers dream of a united Europe is no longer relevant? We however can see that it is still very much the reason for the Project and very much the direction of travel. You might be able to produce some oddalls who argue the unification project is not going fast enough, so what it is still going in the one direction.
3) I do not think you will find a great deal of difference between the preambles of all the treaties just a general drift towards further integration. (Nice still says RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration and IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration)
If there were no internal pressure for further unity then there would actually be no need for a new treaty in the first place. All you are showing is evidence of a rearguard action, that is bound to fail because there is no other project on the table than European Integration, they are only taking about how far and how fast and not the direction.
The German court cases have no meaning in this as they were brought by interested parties as a challenge to the government in the same way that the Wheeler court case was not evidence of a different political direction.
4) Federal can mean a lot of things the Treaties do not speak of federalisation only advancing European integration. I would disagree that the key idea, is the *lack* of overwhelming central control, it is that there is a division of powers between the central and subsidiary governments. My dictionary says “pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states”
The impression we are asked to believe is that the EU is some sort of confederation where the full power at all times remains within the member states, the EU is well passed that point. So I tend to think talk of a federation is not the point as all are signed up to the concepts clearly signposted in the preambles. The eventual political form of that United Europe is secondary to the desirability, or not of a united Europe.
5) The whole point about the treaties is they are measures to seek a workable means of moving forward the process of European integration. The EU is marked by two unswerving trends more power is transferred from member states to the EU, never the reverse, not a single power has ever been returned because of the EU principle that once a power has been transferred to the EU from national governments, it will stay there in perpetuity and can never be transferred back. Although this was always a long standing understanding it was given legal force by the Maastricht Treaty. And decisions which required unanimity are switched to Qualified Majority Voting, thus removing the veto from member states.
You argue that nothing has happened since Maastricht well only two more treaties a rejected Constitution and its re-introduction as the Lisbon Treaty! so in 17 years we have constant continual attempts to move forward the process of European integration. Again as you use the term failures you are accepting the concept of a united Europe! I think this makes my point, the failures, if they exist, do not indicate a new direction or a new end position that remains the same, a united Europe they are only failures in moving at the speed some would like.