Sometimes European officials do or say something that drives individuals like myself, who aren't completely sure what to think of the European Union project, further into the Eurosceptic direction. This week that mental instinct to stampede occurred on two occassions. The first was last Wednesday's comment by the EU President Herman van Rompuy that "the biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war." Why is it that opposition to the EU must always be challenged by supporters of the Union by invoking the dread spectre of war and destruction? Is it so impossible to politely disagree on the closer union of the European (nation-)states? Sadly, it seems that to Mr. Van Rompuy, this is indeed the case.
But unfortunately for our Continental President peace and cooperation in Europe are not the sole prerogative of the European Union. As we saw a couple of weeks ago with the Anglo-French military treaties, some countries, even those with a history of animosity, can work together without going through Brussels. Does Mr. Van Rompuy really believe that, should the EU disappear tomorrow France and Britain will renege on those agreements and sail their fleets up the Thames and the Seine? Or that Poland and Germany, now NATO allies, will mass their armies along the Oder and the Neise? In fact, wasn't the last war in Europe fought in what used to be a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual state on the Balkans? Yes it was, and should Europe ever become a state, it too will be multi-ethnic and multi-lingual, and that is not a sure guarantee for stability.
The second comment that made my mind do a quick side-step, was made by the President of the European Commision, Jose Manuel Barroso. He blamed the failure of negotiations for next year's EU budget on the stubborn resistance of a few countries, saying: "A small number of member states were not prepared to negotiate in a European spirit. ... Those that think they have won a victory over 'Brussels' have shot themselves in the foot. They should know that they have dealt a blow to people all over Europe and in the developing world." While the BBC does not name the countries blocking the budget, the NOS does: it's the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Of course, once negotiations break down, the blame game immediately begins. And Mr. Barroso has seen fit to clothe himself in what he believes to be the mantle of wisdom, leaving - in his mind at least - the rags of foolishness to the resisting states.
Mr. Barroso should not be so hasty, however. The Netherlands and the UK have good reason to oppose the budget at this point. The European Parliament apparently wants to not only negotiate this year's budget, but also stake claims for the future before any agreement is reached. This goes totally against the rules on the budget, which are never set years in advance. Instead of climbing on his high horse Mr. Barosso should have looked at the facts first. Now I can't shake the feeling that to him it does not matter who is out of line in the negotiations, as long as it's not anyone connected to the European Union. What's more, the states are most certainly 'prepared to negotiate in a European spirit'. The EU is still an organisation made up of sovereign member states, who's sole responsibility is to their own citizens. So by blocking an unfair budget, they are behaving in a proper manner. That is, unless Mr. Barosso would like to argue that the member states are no longer sovereign? But that's a Pandora's box he won't wish to open, as closing it again will be impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment