A funny thing has been going on in a far flung corner of the European Union and we should be taking note. The islanders of a small archipelago in the Gulf of Bothnia, off the south-west coast of Finland, are angry and they might be about to rock the European Union’s boat. The chain is called Åland and for those of you not familiar with Finnish geography, this is what the Columbia Encyclopaedia has to say about it:
‘Politically, it constitutes the Åland province of Finland. The archipelago consists of about 7,000 islands, but fewer than 100 are inhabited. The climate is mild. The chief town and provincial capital is Mariehamn, a port on Åland, the largest of the islands. Shipping, fishing, forestry, farming, and tourism are the chief occupations. Swedish is the main language. The islands, colonized by Swedes, are of strategic importance.’
Strategic importance is about right, because the issue that has got the good people of Åland up-in-arms threatens to tear up the holy grail of European politics – the EU constitution. Åland has an unusual constitutional position within the Finnish constitution. It is an autonomous region with equal constitutional weight to the Finnish state. Åland’s politicians believe that this gives them the power to stop the ratification of the EU flagship treaty.
The islanders are angry because an EU directive has banned them from engaging in one of their favourite pastimes – chewing tobacco. What is more, because Åland is not a sovereign state, it cannot argue its case before the European Court of Justice.
The particular substance concerned, which goes under the endearing name of Snus, is produced in Sweden and harks back to the islands’ Swedish heritage. Under an EU directive, Snus is forbidden on health grounds. Except, that is, in Sweden. When Finland’s scandinavian neighbour joined the EU in 1995, it negotiated an opt-out that meant it did not have to outlaw Snus because it is part of ‘swedish cultural heritage.’
Why then, ask the Ålanders, should they be deprived their small (if rather unpleasant) pleasure? There are undoubtedly those who would argue that in the name of European harmony, it is the Swedish exemption that should be revoked. But this would be a dire mistake. If Ålanders want to use Snus then they should be allowed to and if they decide that it is bad for their health then they should decide to ban it. There is no clear reason why the European Union should be the legal authority intervening in this case. Ålanders’ use of Snus does not endanger the public health, commerce or general well-being of other Europeans. This is simply an example of the EU using its powers to intervene in areas where they really have no place.
Beneath the kafuffle over Snus lies a fundamental problem with the way that the EU conceives of its role. On the one hand, it claims to be focused on subsidiarity – pushing governing decisions to the lowest possible level – preferably to local regions. On the other hand, the ethos of Brussels is to encourage harmonisation – where standards across the EU should be the same across the board. While the first principle is positive, it is incompatible with a harmonised EU. The whole point of subsidiarity is to recognise regional differences. Yet harmonisation requires that local difference should be subjugated to the standard set by Brussels. Europe cannot work like that because European countries are inherently different from each other.
The Åland case highlights this in two ways: firstly in terms of the variation of local practices and customs, and secondly in terms of the constitutional structures of the member states. In the USA, although local differences do exist, the states are basically constituted along the same lines. European countries by contrast have a huge variety of constitutional formulations, some of them with unusual quirks, such as in the case of the unlikely power of Åland. These have been worked out within these states over many years in order to suit the cultural situations in which they find themselves. Some countries value or need regional autonomy (such as Spain) while others value a centralised state. Some pay particular heed to certain ethnic groups (such as the Suomi in Sweden). As much as the European Union might like to, it cannot harmonise this diversity.
Therefore, if the EU is to have a ‘constitution’ it should be one whose powers are so limited that they do not interfere with the legal and cultural diversity of Europe. Sadly, if it continues to poke its nose into the snuff-pots of mild-mannered Scandinavians, this seems unlikely to come about.
Comments (1)
Actually snus isn't outlawed in EU, it's illegal to sell outside Sweden but perfectly ok to use it anywhere.
And the reason why it's illegal to sell it is mostly due to lobbying from the multinational tobacco companies who where afraid that snus would catch on outside sweden as anti smoking law becomes more and more common and a viable smokeless alternative would be a threat to them.
Posted by Pierre | March 29, 2006 12:09 AM
Posted on March 29, 2006 00:09