Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Taking the concept of Wherefore art thou? A couple of steps further today to ask, wherefore is the EU not the purpose of the eu, but what it sees as its value and meaning in its world? And of course, what that world sees as the EU's value and meaning. Essentially, the question I'm posing is where does the EU see its place of highest value for its constituents, and where do they see its value? Is it important? I think so, because it's the wherefore, the balanced place of meaning between the EU and the people it serves, that tells us about anything from the levels of distribution of power, in other words, the level of democracy, the loyalty of and to the people, the interests that are being served, and whether the EU is performing the role that it expects of itself and what is expected of it. So when we say, why isn't the EU doing this or that, why isn't it standing up for itself? Or why is it standing up for this particular issue, or whatever it may well be, because it doesn't see itself as in the role that we are expecting of, has not shaped itself for that role. It has a different sense of where its value lies. It has a different sense of its place in its world. It has a different sense of where it is for that's why, as I talked about in the previous episodes on Wherefore Art Thou? I think purpose. What for and why for is so different from the place of value and meaning. The wherefore purpose is inevitably transactional. My purpose may be to lead the European Commission. Why? Because that's what I've been appointed to do. To do what? To do what we have set out in our plans. It tells you nothing about the assumptions of how and why those particular plans were chosen. It tells you nothing about where the eu, the Commission and I see as our place in our world. If we see ourselves primarily as a trading bloc, avoiding conflicts that might hurt our revenues, then our purpose will reflect that. If we see ourselves as having real value as the political leader of and for Europe, then our purpose and subsequent actions will be entirely different. Most organizations go straight to purpose, but my experience is that unless they understand their wherefore first, sooner or later they'll come unstuck. A transactional relationship, in addition, doesn't inspire loyalty or security. A relationship of mutual meaning does. In a transactional relationship, we have no compunction to walking away if a better deal comes along. In a relationship of balance, meaning loyalty has a pretty insistent voice. I suspect that the Brits, even those who supported EU Membership saw their relationship with the EU as being transactional and that's why the majority voted to walk away. So how does all this apply to the eu, the European Union? How do we find out its wherefore? It could be argued that the original spirit of the eu, in fact, that's what I am arguing, was embodied in an organization that didn't go on to be part of it, but which essentially set the ethos and moral foundations for it. This was the Council of Europe, established on May 5, 1949, with 10 founders and now with 46 member states. Its foundation was drawn up in the form of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. And it stated that, quote, the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members and for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress. So basically, the Council of Europe, by the way, not to be confused with the European Union's current lawmaking body, the European Council, tried to set the underpinnings for the rebuilding of a peaceful Europe. And that's important, a peaceful European after the war in three key areas. First, unity. Second, within a framework of common principles and ideals, and finally, economic and social progress. It then set about creating conventions on human rights, torture and violence against minorities, freedom of expression and consistent forms of representative democracy. And it now entrenches those conventions through its most famous institution, the European Court of Human Rights. Wasn't it all a bit top down? Well, in assuming that these ideals were part of a common heritage, it was taking a fairly large leap of faith. After all, Europe was just emerging from a devastating war in which many people had actually practiced the exact opposite of those principles. So yes, in that sense it was top down. But the Council could be and is forgiven for its decent and even noble aspirations, primarily focused on peace. On another track. In May 1950, the then French Foreign Minister Robert Schumann proposed the formation of a Europe wide organization that was going to actually model this peaceful European the European Coal and Steel Community, managing coal and steel across the continent. And its purpose was to prevent the principal resources of war at that time being made into weapons. This he and his fellow leaders hoped would eliminate the tools of friction between France and Germany. Peace again. But there was more to it. At that time. Not only did he want this European Coal and Steel Community to model economic cooperation and peace in Europe, but he saw it as a first step towards a federation of Europe. Schuman and his fellow signatories saw the ultimate value for Europe not just in socially moral or economic terms, but as a unified political block built brick by brick, or rather lump of coal by lump of coal. The European Coal and Steel Community went on to become the European Economic Community, the eec, before morphing into the various bodies of the European Union. The Council of Europe continues to exist, and it shares an overall mission with the EU that I've summarized as to promote peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law across Europe and beyond, and for Europe to ensure social and economic stability and progress. The founders dream of the Federation of Europe, however, disappeared. There may have been some calls, for example, quite recently from Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, for a more united Europe. But the efforts to bring Europe closer together seem to have remained focused on the social and economic, mostly fiscal and trade, rather than the political, military and, God forbid, emotional links. Now, this may be a deduction or inference too far, but it seems to me that, deeply embedded in the EU's sense of its own value, its wherefore is keeping as many countries as possible inside the tent to keep the peace. Its greatest fear is that Europe will splinter and go back to war again. I remember a friend having a conversation with the late Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, who told him quite bluntly, that without the eu, Europeans would return to conflict. And I suspect the EU at its roots feels the same way too. Hence, it's been very, very, very careful not to rock the boat. Early on, in fact, it was so careful to avoid friction. Between 1958 and until at least 1992, the sighting of the EEC's civil servants in Brussels was deemed provisional because the members at the time simply couldn't agree on a permanent location. In fact, it was only placed in Brussels in the first place because at that time it was Belgium's turn to chair the EEC and they offered a newly vacated ministry building as temporary accommodation. So for the next 34 years, despite huge building projects, the fiction was maintained, all because there had to be some form of consensus. Hence my leap, arguable as it may be, that the EU and its predecessors see its greatest value as a maintainer of consensus rather than as a leader. Hence its reluctance to lead to act as a sovereign bloc, because that would necessitate taking decisions that may have opposition and therefore risk a breakup. The EU's dispute with Poland is a good example of how very carefully it treads. In December 2017, the European Commission placed Poland under Article 7, which, if fully implemented, can strip a member state of its voting rights. This was after the then Polish government clearly undermined the independence of its courts and its judges. Not only did Poland's then ruling party ignore the EU's warnings, but it pushed the boundaries even further. It openly disputed the primacy of EU law and the validity of the European Court of Justice. Poland was quite explicitly rejecting the entire ethical and legal foundation of the EU adherence to the rule of law. What did the EU do about it? Well, it continued to provide Poland with substantial funding. It's hard to get accurate figures, but my rough estimate is that this totaled around 100 billion euros during the time of dispute. During the same period, Poland was fined a total of 388 million euros. That's around 0.4% of its allocation. While the EU could have taken much stronger action if it wanted to, it didn't even have in its rules the ultimate sanction of expelling a member state. According to a blog post by Professor Steve Pears, Legal Specialist on the EU and Professor at Royal Holloway University of London, there's no provision to expel a member state from the EU as such. The current institution clearly does not see itself as a political union. It does not see itself or its value as a sovereign entity exercising political, social and economic power and influence as Europe. Couple this with the reluctance to rock the boat internally, and it becomes perhaps a little clearer why the EU has not asserted a distinct political stance in its own distinct interests. It very rarely, if ever, deviates from the political stance of the us, whichever party is in the White House. It seems to see itself as a political subsidiary of Washington, as part of the West. And yet, let's remind ourselves, the EU is the third largest economy in the world. According to the EU itself, one in seven jobs in the union depends on exports. Europe is, and I quote, the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods and services and is itself the biggest export market for around 80 countries. It has a single borderless internal market that allows free movement of people and goods across 27 member states. It is able to negotiate trade agreements with third party countries on behalf of all those member states. Brussels can set regulatory standards that directly affect and influence global markets. It has huge influence in setting and promoting the rule of law and human rights, and on and on and on. But it uses none of that to push its own political interests. It thinks that by playing it safe, by following the leader, it can a keep the peace internally and b safeguard its trading interests globally. Hopefully it's learning, especially since the war in the Ukraine, that political and economic interests and power are inseparable the lack of an independent political stance inevitably weakens the EU's economic position as well. For example, the US is threatening to impose steel and aluminium tariffs from March 12, 2025. Is Brussels retaliating? They say they will. During the last Trump trade war, the EU responded with tariffs on bourbon and Harley Davidsons and it's threatening to do so again. The U.S. economy is, I'm sure, bracing itself for the tsunami like recession that's bound to follow. Now, if the EU were to place retaliatory measures on medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the second largest category of imports from the usa, or if it targeted US services into Europe, it might have a different impact. But that, of course, is a longer story. One of the aims of the EU is to provide security for its members. Yet there's no standing EU army. Instead, individual countries provide funding and forces to NATO under the always American succour, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Ironically, the US has always been ambivalent about NATO. And as early as the 1950s, President Eisenhower complained that the European nations were not carrying their weight. One would have thought that one of the ways that the EU could bring its member states closer together politically and emotionally, would be to set up its own military force that could then be part of NATO or not. All in all, while the EU is more concerned with keeping the peace within its borders by not rocking the boat, the signal to its friends and enemies is that it is inconsequential. So the USA feels no compunction in cutting out the EU and its members from the us, Russia negotiations over the Ukraine, or blatantly interfering to support the extreme right wing party in the German elections, or generally treating Europe as its vassal state. All because Europe's unifying force, the European Union, does not see itself as leading a sovereign political entity. It is not its current wherefore. So this is what I'm taking away from all this. The EU as an institution sees its wherefore, its value to its world in two areas, as a very prosperous trading bloc and as a moderator, a harmonizer of member states through common principles, social norms, laws, currency and behaviors to ensure economic stability. And here we go again, peace in Europe. To do those two things, it is prepared to sacrifice its political power and leverage globally. That's where the EU sees its place in its world. How do its constituents, the people within Europe, see its value? And do those views match up? The closest I got in my research was a question posed by the Varian Group in their Eurobarometer survey for the EU in May 2024. The question they posed to a sample of Europeans in all 27 member states was, what does the EU mean to you personally? With multiple answers possible. The top 10 were at number one, freedom to travel, study and work anywhere in the EU, the euro, peace, democracy, strongest say, in the world. At number five, cultural diversity, bureaucracy, not enough, control at external borders, quality of life for future generations, and a waste of money. So at least we can say that the EU has succeeded in one key aspect, keeping everyone in the tent peacefully. And the Euro and freedom of travel are pretty effective adhesives. And the fact that the EU is strongly associated with democracy in that poll shows that the Union's original mission is still very much intact. In a survey published in November 2024, 51% of those polled said they tended to trust the EU as against 37% who said that they trusted their own national parliament and 33, their own country's government. Now, that may look like good news for the EU at first glance, but not if you remember that its foundational aim was to ensure the promotion and application of liberal democratic values across its member states. And I would assume that that would include trust in the institutions of those member states. So while a small majority may see the EU institutions as embodying that trust, they may not see them as having successfully spread them to their members. Another thing I found interesting is despite the fact that the EU has focused on economic growth, none of those top 10 responses mentioned that. Does that mean that the EU is not communicating its own success as a giant trading bloc or have the benefits not being felt by EU citizens? Well, in another part of the variance survey, when asked about the state of the European economy, 47% said it was sound, 41% said it was bad, and they were more pessimistic about the outlook for their own countries. So despite Europe being such a powerful trading block, somehow that success is not being felt as widely as it should be. Next question. Bearing in mind that wherefore is about value and meaning, what emotional meaning does Europe hold for its citizens? Do they love it? 91% said they felt attached to their own country, which on the face of it, actually can mean anything. What I found more significant was that 53% said they felt very attached. Now, that's considerable emotion and meaning. Only 1, 5%, 15% said they felt the same way about the Union. And people felt more attached to Europe than to the eu. On the one hand, that's understandable. I mean, visualize Europe and then visualize the EU in Brussels and tell me which feels A little more emotional for you. On the other hand, it also tells us that this architect and builder of a united continent is still not seen as its heart, as its emotional core. I said earlier on that I thought this focus on keeping everyone in the tent in peace and not rocking the boat meant that the EU has sacrificed its global political power and, perhaps even worse, its identity as a sovereign entity. In focusing on not rocking the boat, it may have actually unbalanced it. Do Europeans agree? The Bertelsmann foundation carried out a major research study in November 2024, which found that nearly two thirds of citizens surveyed in all 27 member states felt that Europe should stop tagging along with the US. 73% would like the EU to take on more responsibility internationally. And that's a quote. And in a clear sign for the future, the Beattlesman study found that only 38% of Europeans aged between 18 and 35 thought of the US as their most important ally. So here's where we seem to have landed, or at least where I've landed. The EU originally saw its value in the world as a peacekeeper, its own members through the rule of law, democratic principles and creating commonwealth. It was and is so focused on that that it is prepared to sacrifice its identity and its political power both globally and within Europe, to avoid any friction. That may have been enough for its constituents at first, particularly after the trauma of the Second World War. And those constituents still associate the EU strongly with peace and a good quality of life. The EU has achieved practically everything that it set out to do in its original mission keeping the peace, creating a common trading market and so on. But now its constituents are clearly asking for more. They are asking that the EU reviews its place in the world, its wherefore, and stands out for Europe's distinct interests. And in order to do that, there's the strong implication that the EU has to be politically enabled to represent Europe with one voice, to be Europe. And in order to do that, it may have to risk not rocking the boat, but finding a new balance for that boat. I'm Stephen Barton. This has been another episode of the power of balance.