[Mb-civic] The clamour for an eccentric Europe

[Alexander Harper]

Excellent, must-read, thumbnail sketch of the present state of Europe by Tom Kremer (FT).

Al Baraka



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main page content:
The clamour for an eccentric Europe
By Tom Kremer 
Published: August 9 2005 20:35 | Last updated: August 9 2005 20:35

The leaders of France, Germany and the European Union are in denial. They have offered wonderful explanations of why the French and Dutch referendums had nothing to do with the proposed EU constitution, EU integration, the unpopularity of Jacques Chirac, the French president, the menacing Turk, the spectre of the Polish plumber navigating the Paris drains and the euro-betrayal of the Dutch citizen.
 
The last EU summit was, as usual, preoccupied with current crises: the EU budget, the British rebate and whether the constitution should be buried, held frozen in a morgue or transferred to an intensive care unit. What the governing class failed to hear was the authentic voice of the people of France and the Netherlands, asserting their prime allegiance to their countries. The Dutch apparently prefer to stay Dutch. The French, now that they no longer control an enlarged Union, are unwilling to relinquish their way of life. The Germans, if permitted, would vote not just against the constitution but for the return of their cherished Deutschmark.

The engineers of the EU are deaf to the rising clamour of national identities as they are blind to the continent’s diversity of economic and political cultures. The fatal assumption has been that member states are similar, that national diversity does not matter and can be over-ridden by negotiations in a closed political circle. But it is this diversity that determines how far, how fast and how deep integration can be.

Europe’s faultline does not lie in the middle of the English Channel. Across the continent it separates those countries with an eccentric heritage, where power emanates from the grass roots and authority is vested in the individual, from those with a concentric tradition, where power is centralised and the corporate state predominates. The confrontation between France and Britain is not about €3bn or integration, or the visceral dislike of two leaders or about reigniting historical rivalries. It is more profound than that.

What makes Britain eccentric is the organic development of its parliamentary democracy; its trade-based maritime expansion; a rich, flexible and near grammar-less language; a pragmatic approach to life and philosophy; the common law; an anti-authoritarian spirit; an irreverent humour; an unwritten constitution; reliance on individual initiative; commercial enterprise and an attitude of carelessness. 

What makes France concentric is almost the exact opposite. It moved from absolutist rule to an uneasy democracy by episodic revolutions; the grammar of its language is sophisticated with a vocabulary jealously guarded by an august academic body; its philosophy is steeped in great ideals with logic preferred to common sense; its monarchies, empires and republics are distinguished by a rich tapestry of often rewritten constitutions; it draws heavily on formal, written procedures inherent in Roman law rather than live evidence and courtroom drama; its people defer, if with some resentment, to the authority of the state; a reliance on state-supported enterprises and a bureaucracy that governs life through manifold regulations that its citizens have learnt to circumvent.

In critical respects the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Britain are eccentric while Germany, Spain and France form the concentric core of the continent. The significance of the French Non lies in the fact that the populations of the “core” countries are beginning to understand that the EU is not delivering. The people of the continent are now being asked to pay the price of an elusive Greater Europe.

The damage inflicted by a premature, politically inspired euro demonstrates the limitations of closer economic union. The havoc in the wake of the attempted imposition of an ill-conceived European constitution demonstrates the futility of constructing a political union. For a union to be successful the members have to be close enough in character and intent to act as one. This is not the case with Europe. Persisting with a concentric integration results not in a stronger Europe but in its fragmentation. 

For the next decade the struggle between a concentric and an eccentric future will dominate the politics of Europe. France and Britain, as chief protagonists of this polarity, will be engaged in a cold war. Globalisation, the emergence of competitive Asian economies and the preponderance of US power make an eccentric resolution inevitable. A French-inspired, protected geographic entity cannot withstand the forces of the 21st century.

What is needed, and what the constitution signally failed to provide, is a clear demarcation between a competitive economic bloc, generally considered desirable, and a political union, the pet project of the political class. We need the downsizing of Brussels, the repatriation of decision-making powers, the transformation of the euro from a political currency to one that serves trade and travel and a political language free of grandiose claims and untenable promises. Even the political classes will have to admit eventually that a cocktail of enlargement, integration and national sovereignty is undrinkable. It is in the interests of Britain, and it is singularly well placed, to take the lead in driving this agenda.


The writer is the author of The Missing Heart of Europe (June Press) 
 


-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm