Making the pro-European argument

Listening to The EU Debate on the BBC last week, I was struck again by how often the pro-European argument re-treads old arguments, and I have to admit I roll my eyes every time the peace argument is brought up.

This is not to say that there's anything wrong in the peace argument itself (or to take away from the debate on the BBC, which had a very limited time to establish the argument). The EU does contribute to peace in Europe because it promotes continuous cooperation between the Member States. NATO has contributed massively to peace in Europe, but it's not as deep as the EU or as good at generating connections and cooperation between its Member States - despite Greece and Turkey being members since 1952, the fifty years since joining have not been the most cordial (indeed the deterioration of relations between the two countries after joining was a case study in how multilateral military alliances can destabilise relations between countries at my university). Likewise the Council of Europe and its Court of Human Rights have not prevent war between its members, with the Russia-Georgia war being a recent example.

However the European Union is much, much more than just a peace project and requires a more complex argument to justify it. By launching the pro-European argument with the "peace in Europe" rationale, by the time NATO has been addressed there is less time to set out a deeper context or basis to the EU to build on when the debate moves on to the economy or justice and home affairs. Not only does the opening argument on peace sound distant from today's concerns (it's inevitably admitted that war wouldn't suddenly occur if the Euro collapsed tomorrow, etc), but it also means that there is little underlying rationale or idea that holds together the cooperation covered by the EU. Not a good way to start off the pro-European argument.


Explaining takes practise.

A common thread to discussions in pro-European circles seems to be that the pro-European case would find more supporters if it was explained. This irritates me for two reasons: it's a boring discussion that doesn't solve or further anything, and pro-Europeans are terrible at explaining things. Probably because they constantly talk about explaining things rather than actually explaining them.

Or, more seriously, there is usually less need to defend and think about defending the status quo than if you want to change something. It reminds me of the position of unionists in Northern Ireland or the unionist argument in Scotland, where the status quo came or is coming under pressure (in greatly differing circumstances), and those who supported the union lagged behind in creating an articulate narrative in its favour. While supporters of the British union have adapted, pro-Europeans still lag behind - with the pro-European position more precarious if it also wants to argue for the future changes that are a key part of the pro-European position in the Eurocrisis.

The structure of the EU and the reliance of the pro-European movement on European leaders and European summit meetings meant that it struggles to create a convincing narrative and has lost time. It also means that there's been a shrinking support base - a generation of believers in the European ideal as a way of maintaining peace have passed, and the European statesmen and women who pushed the project along in the past are less likely to be generated in the future by a generation for whom the need for peace is less visceral and the narrative for the European Union less clear.


Participation needs to be at the core of pro-Europeanism.

Protesilaos Stavrou has pointed out that there are two types of pro-European: the intergovernmental and the federalist. If the focus on European statesmen and stateswomen and all the related summitry has left us with a withered pro-European base and an out-of-date narrative, then I don't see much future for that strand of pro-Europeanism - how can it bring the EU closer to citizens and build a convincing narrative? The summitry that has dominated the Eurocrisis has not only failed to deliver a solution, damaging the credibility of the intergovernmental model, but is also corrosive to the political confidence and support necessary for the outcomes of summits to be delivered on. The intergovernmentalist pro-European seems to assume that necessity will overcome objections in the end and that the EU will find a way to muddle through. But integration has progressed further than in the past with an outdated narrative in the present: there isn't the same reserve of goodwill to run on, and it is hardly desirable to run a game of chicken between economy necessity (or any other necessity) and European voters and hope that we'll muddle through each time.

The second element of the pro-European argument is generally that cooperation between Member States means that we can achieve more together than we could apart. This needs to be developed further with the idea of participation and a more democratic EU: that if cooperating means that Member States can do more and achieve more than on their own, then a democratic EU would empower citizens to a degree that they wouldn't be without the EU.

This also means that the pro-European side needs to drop the idea that everyone benefits equally and nobody looses out from this process: that the internal market, justice and home affairs cooperation, etc, make sense, but they have downsides that need to be debated and avoided or mitigated. This is why there is social elements to the internal market - ensuring that there are certain common standards on employment (such as maternity) mean that the social protection that is part of our common values is not undermined. However we need to build a substantive European public sphere so that we can debate these issues better and so we can use the European Parliament better.

It is a complicated argument to make and needs to take on the failings of the EU as it stands as much as it builds a robust narrative to defend the idea of European Union versus ad hoc argeements or free riding on the rest of the EU while withdrawing. (And of course it would need to be more flesh out than I've written here). But there must be a coherent narrative to support the cooperation that pro-Europeans are advocating, and one that underlines the alternative argument of Euroscepticism in the public mind. If the EU is to survive, it needs to be responsive to citizens, so participation needs to be at the heart of the pro-European argument.

The Return of Ken Clarke

Ken Clarke's return to the Tory front bench has been widely reported and commented on on the Internet. Apparently, his economic wisdom is boundless and will help right the wrongs of the British economy which were inflicted by Brown.

However, despite his seemly vast economic knowledge, according to the Tories, his opinions on the Euro are heresy, and something which shouldn't be taken too seriously since it's not something he would know about anyway. Pro-Europeanism and views on the largest project of economic integration in the world are also outside this economic genius' remit, as is anything that would challenge the Tory's conventional wisdom.

I mean, he would have to have been Chancellor once for anyone to consider his views seriously, wouldn't he?

On a serious note, I do think Clarke is a capable politician and minister, and he's probably a good choice for Cameron's shadow cabinet. He may hold views that go against the Conservative party orthodoxy, but I'd say that he'd toe the line now (or at least make more of an effort to) now that he's back in frontline politics. As a "big-hitter", he could be a very valuable weapon for the Conservatives.