European Theology Season opens early on Euroblogs

Is it yet another sign of climate change? Usually Eurobloggers hang on for another week or so before they start musing on identity crises and the meaning of European integration, but today 4 bloggers started to ponder the purpose and direction of European integration: Charlemagne, Jason O Mahony, Eurogoblin, and Grahnlaw.

Grahnlaw ended his post with this line (and perhaps I'm just imagining the weariness):

"There is no end in sight for blogging on the high politics of EU fundamentals."

Integration Doctrine?

No doubt some people do see European integration in somewhat doctrinal terms, but it's not something I've seen a lot of Eurobloggers do (indeed, it's noteworthy that Open Europe recently seemed to advocate greater discussion on the "Integrate or not to Integrate" question rather than focusing on policy*). Charlemagne is right to say that doctrinal thinking on integration - to see opponents as nationalists and integration as a higher goal - is wrong. But it's important to note that there are many shades of integrationalism and that being for integration is no indication of being against subsidiarity and healthy local government. For example, I don't think even the most ardent federalist would support a single European social security system (the clue's in the name "federalist" - federalists believe in political power at several levels).


Anglo-Saxon Europeans

Eurogoblin has called himself an "Anglo-Saxon European": greater democracy at a European level is good, but the Council is and should remain the most powerful institution, and member states should remain the primary form of political organisation. In a lot of ways, I agree: member states do a lot of things better than the EU, and the subsidiarity principle needs to be strengthened and given greater practical effect. However, I don't think that the Council should remain ever-mighty forever: it needs reform to be made more transparent, open and responsive to national parliaments. It is the focus on the national and intergovernmental character of the Council that gives it political licence to work in the secrecy of diplomacy and intergovernmentalism.

"Rather than creating a centralised federal super-state, my support for the EU stems from my belief that the barriers between states should be melted away. I want a genuine European single market – with goods, services, capital, labour and knowledge swimming backwards and forwards across borders. Europe is working to reduce the arbitrary power of the state over the individual, and to let citizens travel, settle or conduct business wherever they want. The EU is a tool of decentralisation – encouraging devolution of powers to regions and local administrations and helping to settle (peacefully) nationalist conflicts."

Again, here I'd like to point out that federalism emphasises power being dispersed to different levels (though I think Eurogoblin was relying on "centralised federal super-state" as a turn of phrase - it is, after all, a cliché of European politics). It's hard to see, however, how the EU could be a tool for decentralisation without interfering in the make-up of member states, which would surely entail a massive centralisation of power in the first place. Unless it was only meant to be an example of federalism to be repeated within member states.

I actually think that integration is a flawed process and not a panacea - and, perhaps ironically, this leads me to the conclusion that a more politicised EU would be better. This would entail greater political prominence of the institutions and greater political competition within them (and also greater public participation). Especially if the dismantling of barriers is to make sense. Which leads me to the next point.


A political Union or a Union that's political?

People have argued against a more political EU because they say that the EU cannot get the support to decide on redistributionist policies, so therefore the EU should restrict itself to the internal market. Now the internal market will never be complete, in the same way that national markets aren't complete: economic and business innovation mean that regulations will always be evolving. Nevertheless the internal market has made remarkable progress and it pretty integrated. Further integration and barrier-breaking would necessarily entail a degree of redistribution: of chances and opportunities in the market, etc. As the conflict over the services directive show, further market integration is not a non-political question. Should we integrate further in the free movement of services and people, there will need to be choices on what level of European protections need to be set.

The EU is a lot more "redistributionist" in its decision-making than is realised. What about CAP and the Structural Funds? Are decisions of more or less regulation not increasingly about market protection, worker protection, etc., and do these decisions not affect the incomes and lives of people? The Euro, as we have seen, redistributes risk - not only in the sense that ratings agencies treated Greece the same as Germany, but the whole European economy is integrated: after all, Greek debt is owned by French and German banks.

Integration has brought economic development and growth, as well as greater freedom for citizens across the continent. But simply liberalising everything doesn't help everyone equally: there are losers in this process. Let's flip the question of greater democracy in the EU on its head: instead of "can a democratic EU retain the support of the people?" let's ask, "can an EU focused on a closed-off Council make these decisions and retain public support - or would a more democratic EU be better placed to make these decisions?"

I believe in further integration and democracy because I believe that not everyone benefits, even though integration and the internal market are necessary for our economy(ies). An integrated market provides the best guarantee for prosperity, but we need the scope for greater political involvement to decide how we run it, and to decide how we can make it work better for those who have lost out. This requires greater political integration; more pan-European elections that offer a choice in competing policies. This also necessarily means that the EU level will become more prominent versus the national egos in the Council, but the member states will remain in control of most of the areas that affect citizens lives. Put simply, we need greater integration and participation in the areas we are already "integrated" in, and more political control, because integration isn't perfect, and we all need to be involved in making sure it works for us.



*I disagree completely. The more the Euroblogosphere examines the policy questions, the more mature it is and the greater impact it can have, rather than just being an online club for discussions on integration theories. Discussing integration is good and necessary, but we shouldn't withdraw into a theoretical bubble.

UPDATE: Grahnlaw has written another article on the subject.

Being European, or becoming European?

European identity is a complex one with many debates surrounding it (European nationalisms and identities is a particular interest of Josef's over at the Citizen-Europe blog), and identity, politics and culture fascinate me in how they interact at times. Still, on the question of European identity, I can only give a personal response.

So am I European, becoming European or is there any "European" for me to be anyway?

"European" to me is a lot of things. First, there's the mix of values that always gets mentioned when European identity is brought up; which is shown in a certain balance between individualism and the community and the welfare state. It's also a shared cultural and historical legacy that has shaped the continent and its nations, though sometimes in different ways.

Mostly, for me, being - or becoming - European is aspirational. When I think of Europe, I think of its diversity and its languages and its traditions, and I want to travel, explore and experience all of the little differences, while I still feel at home. To me it's not rootless cosmopolitanism, but a deep appreciation for many roots and a desire to feel a part of the different places and people that I meet.

Being European seems to be a process; of traveling, learning, meeting and experiencing, in places that feel to be familiar, but with added flavour. It's not something that I can really claim to be very good at - I have no natural gift at languages, though I try in my own way to learn more and practice (see my on-again-off-again German blog), and in many ways I'm very rooted locally: with my friends and family, and with my degree (and presumably career) path anchoring me home. I'm also a creature of habit. Though some factors mean that I cannot move as freely as some, I have met several people who I have found inspirational in their attitude.

For me, the European Ideal is in discovering and enjoying all that Europe has to offer. I doubt that many people could ever really "be" European - at least in the fullest sense of what I have in my head - but I think that the process of becoming is perhaps the major part of the thing itself. It's certainly one of the most enjoyable parts.

So am I European? Can you ever really say for yourself? Blogging has made me feel more European, and more connected, and has moved me to become a part of things like Th!nk2. If nothing else, I certainly want to be European - I've seen it, and I want to be part of it.

Do you think that a European identity could ever be inspirational (or aspirational)?

Europe doesn't need a Pro-European Alliance in the EP

Guy Verhofstadt has spoken of the need for a "strong pro-European alliance" in the European Parliament for this term. He said:

"The three largest groups in the European Parliament announced today their commitment to pro-European values and their intention to seek a political consensus at the heart of the European Union in order to respond in a coherent and united way to the multiple challenges that Europe's citizens are now facing in terms of employment and financial security."

Now the only thing you can say about pro-Europeanism when it comes to "employment and financial security", it that there should be some degree of EU involvement in these policy areas. The problem is that "pro-Europeanism" either amounts to the constitutional status quo, or a vague degree of increased integration. "Pro-Europeanism" in itself doesn't provide any ideological clue to what kind of policies a coalition will enact - what, for instance, is Europeanism's stance on the level of workers rights that's appropriate to an economy in recession? Verhofstadt has confused a unified cross-party pro-European alliance for some sort of Coalition from the Napoleonic Wars that, if it held together long enough, would put an end to the spectre of Euroscepticism. But it can't work like that.

Grand Coalitions aren't necessarily a bad thing; grand coalitions can make good governments, and they provide political stability in a country. But they need a common programme for government. In the EP, the executive is separate from the legislature so there's no need for a fixed or agreed programme of government to provide stability. So this alliance is not strictly necessary on a long-term basis. Also, since the EP's say over constitutional matters is extremely limited, basing a coalition on what is essentially a non-issue - apart from non-binding reports and the occasional vote on treaties or enlargements - isn't exactly a strong foundation. The rhetoric of Pro-European unity will paper over the divisions on the practical issues that the EP has to deal with in its day-to-day life. It hardly helps the EP's image to have such an alliance - wouldn't it be better to project it as a mature arena for political debate that scrutinises legislation and the Commission well?

If Verhofstadt wants to win more hearts and minds to "pro-Europeanism", he needs to draw in the public to the Brussels Bubble and spark interest and participation in EP politics. An outwardly cosy coalition in control of Parliament won't do this. Political competition encourages participation and interest, so it shouldn't be suppressed. The alliance - which I suspect will be more rhetorical than real, except for important votes, such as the Commission President vote - will give credibility to the ECR's strange claim to be the "first real opposition". For several reasons, the ECR is just not that significant, and will probably collapse at some point. Open political competition will make party politics in the EP matter more and if this perception increases among the public, then it would be more of a threat to the ECR than attempts to marginalise them. After all, the ECR are already having difficulties maintaining coherence, and it's only their first day!

It's also bad politics for ALDE. Ruling out coalitions on an issue-by-issue basis ties the hands of the EPP, since the only other option it has is a coalition with PASD or PASD and ALDE. This weakens ALDE's position as the EPP and PASD can do deals without ALDE's input. While it strengthens the hand of the PASD when it comes to coalition politics, in terms of electoral politics it will mean that they are not playing the oppositional role well or positioning themselves properly for the next elections.

Finally, this line of politics already goes against what ALDE and the PASD want - Barroso has used this line of reasoning before to try and brush away calls for presenting a programme for the next 5 years and to downplay the significance of the lack of a contest for his post. He said:

"I am in favour of a political Europe, but I am against partisan political confrontation in Europe. If we are a supra-national reality, we need to be supra-partisan politicians. ...I am against political parties’ artificial dramatisation... We must talk about Europe positively, because what most encourages eurosceptics in times of crisis is the pessimism of pro-Europeans."

Surely the worst thing "pro-Europeanism" could do is adopt the politics of Barroso?

On Phone Chargers

The EU has managed to get the top 10 mobile phone companies to agree to adopt a single phone charger that will be compatible across their brands. The companies include:

"...Apple, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, and Sony Ericsson – [and they] represent 90 percent of Europe's mobile phone market."

The story has been covered by Stephen Spillane and Gulf Stream Blues.

There will be no legislation to enforce this; the move is an agreement between the companies and it won't be enforceable in law. However, the agreement only came about when the EU applied pressure by threatening to introduce legislation in this area - which would probably pass in the Council and the European Parliament, just like the roaming charge cap.

The benefits of such a move will be mostly environmental, since there will be less electrical waste of old, incompatible chargers being thrown away, but there will also be benefits to the consumer in terms of convenience.

Dave Keating at Gulf Stream Blues touched on what could be one of the most interesting aspects of this story as it (might) develop:

"Since most of these companies also design phones in the US and the rest of the world, I would assume that this standardization will eventually spread to the rest of the world. After all, why would they make phones with different electrical input jacks specifically for Europe?"

If the single charger is adopted by these companies outside of the EU, it will demonstrate the economic power that comes with the single market. As the economy globalises, it's likely that market access will become more essential in the calculations of the economic and political consequences of regulation. The bigger the market, the more insulated that market is from the negative economic effect of regulation: so it's easier for big markets such as the EU to set higher standards than small (and sometimes even medium) states as the relative economic power of big companies is reduced when they want to ensure they have market access.

Not that the EU should go mad regulating, and I'm not denying that EU regulation can have negative effects on the economy - it all depends on the regulation, and views on particular examples of regulation will vary depending on political priorities. But the single market enables states to re-assert (some of) their political power and relevance at a time when economic power is growing and limiting the political options of states.

Another thing to note is that the Tories in the EP have welcomed this new move:

"British Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour, member of the consumer affairs committee in the European Parliament, also welcomed the agreement.

"The days of drawers full of useless old mobile phone chargers will soon be over. Common sense has prevailed," Mr Harbour stated.

"We will no longer have to worry about forgetting our chargers and having to ask around to find one that is compatible. This agreement will also encourage more chargers to be recycled, preventing electronic waste," he added."

Perhaps an attractive aspect of this deal for the Conservatives is that it was reached without any actual legislation (though it's still strange to hear the Tories hailing a European move as a victory for "common sense"), but it shows that there is recognition in the Conservative party that the single market is worth something as a working reality, and not just a free-market ideal to pay lip-service to - and what's more, there's a recognition that common rules/policies mean something.

Now it could easily be countered that the Tories could hardly mean anything else when they say they support the single market as you can't have a single market without common rules. Still, the recent political message of the Conservatives gives a different impression. If the Tories are serious about this new group, and are serious about the single market, they will have to show in their rhetoric that some decisions need to be made in Brussels. They also need - and this is a big step that they might never take - to accept that it follows that there should be some form of political contest in the EU, since the question of economic governance is a left-right issue. They will have to accept the value of politics while (if they remain committed to the ECR) rejecting political union itself.

A coherent political vision from the ECR will probably never occur to anyone within the group, let alone see the light of day, yet that is what they'll need if they don't want to be outflanked by withdrawlists and if they wish to avoid being cornered into policies that will weaken the single market itself. In other words, their political group at the very least needs to get political. Politics isn't bad, you know.

Apathy breeds Apathy

Or: "Be an Active Citizen.... please?"

All political systems tend to be characterised as distant and out-of-touch at times; especially the European Parliament. There are many factors in this: structure of the political parties/EP party groups, media attention, institutional structure/power balance, etc. These all contribute to it, but we should remember that politics is what we make of it too, and it tends to be shaped by those who are active in the process. So, please be an active citizen, and vote, even if the European Parliament seems remote to you.

Politics can only be changed through engagement, and often that engagement needs to be long term. We need to make sure our voices are heard, and are effective in being heard. Not voting and expecting the system to be more responsive to your needs and wishes simply doesn't work.

First of all, candidates want the job (in most cases), and want to win the seat. That means running an effective campaign, and getting enough votes. This seems like an obvious statement, but think about the effects it has - obviously the most effective campaign will be the one that gets the most voters on its side - not the most people, the most voters. What, after all, is the point of going after people who aren't likely to vote and wooing them with your policies if they end up not voting? It's a big risk going after such voters when there are "dependable" voters out there who will actually vote (and may even be persuaded to vote for a particular candidate). If you want politicians to adopt policies closer to your preference, then you have to let them know that your vote is up for grabs (and, if possible, what policies you'd want to see). Time, lack of activists and financial constraints on political parties also lead to a prioritising in campaigning.

A few years back a student's union advised its members not to vote until candidates came up with student-friendly policies - instantly removing the threat of an organised student vote against any of the candidates, and removing the incentive to change policy; especially since students as a group vote in fewer numbers.

Second, if possible, talk to/contact the candidates. Obviously a lot of people don't have that much time, but it is worth finding out not only what they stand for, and if they'll be responsive to your needs and opinions. Naturally they won't (and shouldn't) be very ready to change their policies to suit you, since they need to be consistent in their policy choices and with their party platform (if they have one). Still, repeated messages from the public will filter through the party machinery: if there's a policy area, and it's in line with their political philosophy, and there's a market for it, then they will change their policy to become more responsive. Question candidates, and if you don't agree with them, tell them why. (How else will they ever learn...? ;-)).

Third: make your voice count more by expressing your needs to the electoral forum that the election concerns. I.e. if it's a local election, vote based on local issues and your views on how your area can best be served. By voting based on something that's happening at another level of government, your are making your voice less effective. Think local councillors are lazy? Maybe they can afford to be, because come election time it's the national issue that a significant number vote on. Hold them to their promises and make sure they do a good job. You can help make a democratic forum more effective and responsive by focusing on the issues that it deals with.

Fourth: yes, there is that "but I'm only one person" aspect to the whole exercise, and, yes, these things are long-ish term. But the obvious come back is: "well, where else can it start?". Voting behaviour does make an impact. If a person's friends and family aren't interested in voting, then they may be turned off voting by that. By voting and seeing value in voting, you (may) help persuade your friends that there's value in it too - and the more people there are involved, the more likely the system is to be responsive to the people at large.

You can't expect a responsive political system if you have unresponsive apolitical people....

[/rant]

A Song for Europe*

Politics will always bubble over into culture, and now it could feature in the Georgian Eurovision entry this year. Though I suppose it depends on where you stand on Eurovision being culture.

"We Don't Wanna Put In / The negative move, / It's killin' the groove," using a phrase that sounds like "We don't want Putin."

It's not exactly great political satire, but should the EBU ask the group to change the lyrics? The Eurovision is supposed to be a fun kind of continental get-together (naturally to get drunk), so political digs at other countries isn't really in keeping with the spirit of the contest. But should that mean intervention by the EBU?




*A gold star for correctly identifying the reference.