The Prime Minster’s speech on the European Union at St Anthony’s College, Oxford, on 2 February was remarkable both for his willingness to recognise the need to radically alter the way we view the EU and his reluctance to acknowledge the best ways of reaching this goal. Mr Blair called for an ‘open Europe’ where ‘practical people’ would ‘work on… practical but radical steps’. The PM has come to the conclusion that the people of Europe have been turned off Europe by a political elite that spends too much time talking about the nature of EU political structures and too little time putting in place new policies to help them live their lives.
This is a grand delusion The fundamental and most insoluble problem of the EU is not that its citizens feel that it is too slow to act on pressing policy issues (although this is true). Rather, Europe’s malaise lies fundamentally in a lack of accountability, transparency and debate. This is a product of an institutionalised culture of consensus within the EU. The only genuine solution to this is to bring the daylight of democracy into the halls of Brussels. Mr Blair promises us that Britain can be at the forefront of a ‘new consensus about the EU in the twenty-first century,’ but this is absolutely what Britain and Europe least need.
The EU was founded on the principle of consensus – the belief that after the bitter conflict of World War II the governments of Europe would strive to create common policy responses. The technocracy of the EU was legitimated by this consensus and it created an ‘embedded social democracy’ (to coin a phrase) that is now at the core of Europe’s sclerosis. Consensus is dangerous in an advanced political system because unchecked it can force politicians down paths that they would not choose, but feel forced to pursue in deference to political precedence. The best tested antidote to this type of consensual press-ganging is democracy. Not only does the electoral process allow citizens to engage with institutions, but it forces politicians to justify their decisions and, most importantly, provides a fair and open arena for discussing priorities and goals.
Europe does not need more consensus and it certainly does not need, as Mr Blair hints, political leaders taking up their own pet projects and pushing them through the still opaque European Council. If Europe is to develop then it needs a debate in which politicians can say when they disagree instead of cooking up secret compromises behind closed doors. Contrary to Mr Blair’s assertion, Europe needs to decide on how it is going to operate before it ploughs forward with an agenda designed to put more and more political decisions in the hands of unelected officials. Under the current status quo, EU leaders want to push ahead with more EU projects without addressing the real operational problems facing the Union: if it were possible for an ostrich to bury its head in the sand while continuing to run at full speed then they would be doing a pretty good impression of that back-breaking feat.
To read the full text of the Prime Minister’s speech.
- Wil James
Comments (1)
Intergovernmental consensus does not offend democratic accountability, because a country's politicians are accountable to their own democratic institutions, and if they find themselves in disagreement, individual countries can withdraw from intergovernmental projects, as is the case, for example, with NATO.
The EU is not designed to operate on an intergovernmental basis: as a project it is intended to accumulate power on a supranational basis - that is the point of the European Court of Justice, majority voting, and the acquis communautaire. Within its 'competencies' the EU has no need of consensus.
It is in the exercise of its competencies that the EU may be said to be undemocratic, but that is a situation that was implicit in the institution we joined, and which our politicians have allowed to develop.
We should not have joined such a supranational institution in the first place, and the answer now is not to reform and thereby 'legitimise' a superstate, but to withdraw from it - while there is still time. We will lose our country if we do not.
Posted by Tim | February 8, 2006 12:31 PM
Posted on February 8, 2006 12:31