None-speed Europe

In a few days the Irish rejection has turned the dull Treaty of Lisbon into explosive stuff. The treaty, as it stands, can not enter into force without 27 ratifications.

On the other hand, an end to treaty reform is a fundamental change of circumstances, since it contravenes the founding principles on which the European Union is built.

France and Germany have declared that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary to make the European Union more democratic and effective. They expect the remaining states to proceed with ratification.

In practice this means that the Lisbon Treaty would have to be suitably amended to serve initially and a new European Union would have to be established, at least if the unwilling want to make things difficult on the inside rather than to seek alternative arrangements.

If Great Britain decides to pull the plug on ratification, the group of non-ratifiers grows to at least two. This is a clear strategic shift from obstructionism to petrification. If we believe foreign minister David Miliband, Great Britain will throw its weight but also its fate into the ring.

In that case the Franco-German will have a stark choice: to accept the UK’s age old quest for a none-speed Europe or be ready to embark on the 21st century road towards an evolving European Union with less participants.

While fudge and immobility have been the traditional answers to difficult questions, France and Germany just might be resolved enough to do what it takes.


Ralf Grahn

EU Treaty of Lisbon objectives

Why is there a European Union? What do the Member States want to promote or achieve by joining forces within an institutional framework which presupposes team play? Why have these Member States voluntarily decided to pool their resources, more or less effectively, in certain areas?

The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave one answer when he dealt with threats to our prosperity and security: Nation-states, for all their continuing strengths, are too small to deal on their own with these big problems, but global governance is too weak.

***

The general aims of the European Union are, in my humble opinion, acceptable, but the question remains if the Member States have been able to equip the Union with adequate means to meet our common challenges effectively.

The security threats are supposed to be met by common foreign, security and defence policies, but these seem to fall short of the simple test posed by Alexander Hamilton: “the means ought to be proportional to the end” (The Federalist, Number XXIII). Here, the intergovernmental conference seems to have further strengthened the centrifugal forces, worsened the prospects for effective decision-making and deepened the democratic deficit.

***

The Treaty of Lisbon merges the European Community into a single European Union. In addition, some of the proposals of the Constitutional Treaty find their home among the objectives of the revised Treaty on European Union.

As between rival siblings, jealousy and bickering may lead to spurious victories: French government officials have congratulated themselves on banning free and undistorted competition from the objectives of the Union to a Protocol annexed to the Treaties (Protocol on the internal market and competition).

German industrialists, British merchants, American capitalists, Polish plumbers and Chinese entrepreneurs, all have undermined the confidence of a great nation, always on the lookout for a protective political fix. Only now, it is to be called protection, not protectionism.

***

The Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (CIG 14/07),

Article 2

1. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.




Ralf Grahn

European Union of minds?

Politicians with severe symptoms of reform fatigue have hailed the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty as a victory for the European Union, prepared themselves for parliamentary ratification in most member states and vowed to dedicate their efforts to more rewarding causes for a long time to come.

In Poland a new government promises to become a more constructive team player than its predecessor and a new Danish government is thinking about a referendum on abolishing opt-outs from the treaties. In France and in the Netherlands the main parties look set to choose parliamentary ratification, although there are pockets of resistance with roots in the no-camps of the 2005 referendum campaigns.

In contrast, British media, public opinion, the Conservatives and campaigners seem to continue in the vein of Groucho Marx: Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.

Even the UK government seems to laud what it managed to scrap of its 2004 signature, what it did not sign up to now and what sets Britain apart from the other members of the club. What is Britain’s role in Europe going to be? Even after Gordon Brown’s and David Miliband’s speeches we cannot be sure.

Is there going to be a meeting of minds any time soon?


Ralf Grahn

Challenges require EU reforms

When the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke at the College of Europe, in Bruges, he mentioned challenges the nation-states are too small and global governance too weak to deal with. The defining challenges of the 21st century are global in scope, not national.

According to Miliband, the insecurities and threats of 2030 are clear. A Europe at war not within its borders, but struggling to cope with forces beyond its borders. Global capital, people and goods with whom it has not made peace. Religious extremism and division on its doorstep. Energy insecurity and climate change which threatens our security as well as our prosperity. Conflict and instability in regions where we have economic as well as moral interests.

***

In spite of Miliband’s repeated assurances that the European Union will never be a superstate or even a superpower, his vision of the challenges leads to the logical conclusion that there is a need for the EU to review its objectives and means completely: strategies, institutions, resources and policies.

James Rogers, on his blog Global Power Europe, commented on this lack of logical follow-through. Both soft and hard power is needed.

I am going to look at the challenges Miliband mentioned with a view to the future priorities of the European Union.

External security is the fundamental common good, but the individual member states of the European Union are not going to be able to achieve it on their own. The time is ripe for the EU member states to forge an effective foreign, security and defence policy, leading to a common defence. It is necessary that the EU and NATO put their turf wars behind them and reach a fruitful division of labour, encompassing a working Transatlantic relationship.

Soft power has great scope for further action concerning EU enlargement, neighbourhood policy, open and fair trade rules, development assistance and humanitarian action. European values such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law are among our best potential exports for a better world.

Climate change and energy security require both a coherent foreign policy and a functioning internal market.

Internal security includes the control of our external borders and action to prevent terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration. We need common rules for legal immigration of qualified workers and the treatment of asylum seekers.

Economic growth and new jobs require action to enhance European competitiveness. Globalisation offers many possibilities for the willing and, despite temporary relief, many pitfalls for the protectionists unwilling to reform.

Solidarity towards the new member states has to find adequate expressions, which better create real European common goods than the present agricultural and cohesion spending, which should be phased out.

These strategic political priorities should lay the ground for continued institutional reforms: effective decision making and democratic accountability.

These strategic priorities should be the foundation for the necessary reforms of the next long term budgets of the European Union.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

David Miliband: Europe 2030: Model power not superpower; Bruges, 15 November 2007; http://www.fco.gov.uk

James Rogers: David Miliband says ’no’ to a European superpower; Global Power Europe, 16 November 2007; http://www.globalpowereurope.eu