What kind of Europe do we now need/want?
We need an EU which keeps constantly in mind the ‘liberal’ aims of its founders, and actively reinterprets in each new generation what it needs to do for its citizens, not least in responding to new challenges.
As a party, we have from the outset been committed to European integration, because of its potential for helping us to fulfil our liberal and democratic ambitions for our continent, and because there are plainly some objectives which can most effectively be achieved by action at the European level. We remain however determined that no action should be taken at that level which can better be dealt with at the national or local level, and insistent on the importance of democratic accountability at all levels.
Equally it remains important that the EU’s goals should be subject to regular progress checks, and revision to take into account new circumstances, so that its earlier achievements can as necessary be built on.
To the extent that those goals no longer resonate with public opinion in the way that they once did, and that there is popular concern about the way the EU currently operates, thought needs to be given as to how best to renew public enthusiasm for the project.
Issues to consider
- To what extent is the EU equipped to undertake the tasks we want to give it in the 21st Century?
- Is the EU sufficiently legitimate, capable and democratic?
In one fundamental sense, the scene has now changed. For much of the last half century, the challenges facing Europeans were national and continental. For the younger generation, in particular, those campaigns and causes no longer seem compelling. To the extent that the peoples of today’s Europe feel unsafe, they do so not due to memories of WWII but because of the uncertainties of the age of globalisation, which both presents Europe with huge opportunities and confronts it with a wide range of perceived new threats and challenges.
World trade in 2005 was 90 times larger than in 1957. Though Europe’s share of the world’s population and GDP are both declining, the expansion of the world economy which globalisation has done so much to promote has brought with it very substantial gains for European prosperity and employment, and in the rest of this century, provided the WTO does its job and governments act sensibly, that process is likely to continue. Globalisation is thus far from a zero sum game.
On the other hand, there is widespread global insecurity, due in varying degrees to the disturbed state of Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism, crime, climate change, energy shortages, growing migration, and increasing extremes of wealth. It is precisely in these new conditions that there is wisdom in recognising Britain’s interdependence, more than ever, with its European partners. The common characteristic of all these distempers is that they are problems which the countries of Europe lack the strength and influence to solve on their own, but which together, through the EU, they can – if they give it the right tools - tackle more effectively.
Issues to consider
- How in the age of globalisation can the UK best safeguard its interests? Is the EU part of the answer?
- How should the EU shape its response to globalisation?
May 31st, 2007 at 11:46 am
4. Is the EU sufficiently legitimate, capable and democratic?
In the context of an election to the European Parliament, it has to be stressed that the European Parliament is the most trusted EU institution throughout Europe (ahead of the Commission and especially the Council); that it is the only directly elected one; that it is therefore the most legitimate and democratic institution in the EU. A positive message about the European Parliament will buttres the argument why the Lib Dems should be elected to it. And then arguments can be made that the EP needs to be made more capable [currently lacking legislative initiative, which is vested in the Commission, and also lacking sub-poena powers, currently the province of the National Parliaments] through institutional reform.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:53 am
3. To what extent is the EU equipped to undertake the tasks we want to give it in the 21st Century?
The real sticking point here is the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which most national governments are reluctant to allow to develop.
If the EU member states cannot agree to at least not take active steps to undermine policies (foreign and otherwise) decided by an ample majority of its member states, the EU will get nowhere, fast. And it will be the fault of the member states, not of the EU, if the EU can’t act.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The reason globalisation is a zero-sum game is that free movement of capital negates the premises of Ricardo’s comparative advantage. In addition, for globalisation to be a win-win game, the gains need to be spread out by active policies. So, more supranational economic governance and at the same time more subnational political governance are necessary. This means, for the UK, more EU and more devolution, in both cases possibly carried out better than they have been so far.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am
On the other hand, there is widespread global insecurity, due in varying degrees to the disturbed state of Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism, crime, climate change, energy shortages, growing migration, and increasing extremes of wealth.
It almost sounds like these problems are like the weather or come from nowhere. Putting aside the generic “terrorism” and “crime”, which are not new either, the developed countries have to accept a large share of responsibility for these problems. Not to speak of Britain’s role in “disturbing” the state of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the case of energy shortages, North Sea oil and gas made the UK a net exporter of fossil fuels in 1997, but it has been a net importer since about 2002. The state of oil and gas fields is something about which one would expect the government to have 5 year forecasts, and yet nothing was done to prepare for the switch from net exporter to net importer. And now everyone is screaming that the sky is falling. Not that this provides a solution to the problem, but it’s Britain’s own fault that there wasn’t adequate planning.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
The “original” aim of preventing war is relevant now. For instance German-Polish relations will take tact, patience, time, …
The Turkish application puts a focus on a divided, but currently non-violent, Cyprus.
The wars in the former Yugoslavia are painfully recent and the consequent problems are substantially unsolved.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Globalisation is not a zero-sum game. The transport involved in the movement of physical goods contributes to global warming.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
R underhill: “Globalisation is not a zero-sum game. The transport involved in the movement of physical goods contributes to global warming.”
LOL, that makes it a negative-sum game.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I thoroughly disagree with the premise that more power needs to go to the European Parliament. The European Union is not a democratic state, nor should it be. We should remember that it is instead a system of organised cooperation between states based on consensus decision making and mutual agreement. This means that it is up to the states to represent their peoples at a European level where they then come to a consensus decision. This system is in fact far more democratic than giving more power to parliament which would then rely on a simple majority to pass laws. Currently with the powers of decision in the council EU law has to be approved by all member states or a qualified majority of states representing over two thirds of the European population.
The problem is not at the European level, it is at the national level where the system is broken. Today governments in Britain typically have the support of about a third of the population, however they then go to Brussels and speak on behalf of the whole country. It is therefore no wonder that decisions made in Brussels are perceived as illegitimate. There is a correlation in Europe between dissatisfaction with national politics and European decisions. We must remember that a major reason for the rejection of the French Referendum on the Constitutional Treaty was the dissatisfaction with Chirac, who had been elected to stop Le Pen and not because people would necessarily chose him, and not dissatisfaction with Europe. In fact polls from the time generally show a very high support for policies contained in the Constitutional Treaty.
Therefore we should avoid discussion of reforming Europe and the “democratic deficit” now as it takes our focus away from the real problem, the domestic democratic deficit. I believe that once that is solved support for Europe will improve and the European system will function much more smoothly.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
The European Union is not an intergovernmental body. European Member States have polled sovereignty in specific areas. Thus European regulations stand above National laws in those specific areas.
There is a democratic deficit in the system. The role played by the European Parliament must be strengthened to ensure that legislation is subject to thorough scrutiny by directly elected parliamentarians. Today National parliamentarians show little interest and undertake little scrutiny of European matters.
Each of the pillars of the European system has an important role: Council, Commission and Parliament. Today the European Parliament is the weakest pillar and that needs to be addressed.
I agree at UK National level the system is broken. Liberal Democrats have excellent policies on how to fix that situation.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
The EU is not only undemocratic it is now clear that it is inherently anti-democratic. It was after all in order to satisfy the needs of the EU that the vote results in France and the Netherlands were cancelled and the EU Member State governments continued with their constitutional plans. EU Member State governments would have climbed on their high horses and condemned any actions whereby voting results were ignored in any other part of the world. Have there been any votes cancelled in Russia or Iran in recent years?
It is a great tragedy that the Liberal Democrats who once stood so proudly for democracy and freedom see fit to approve the cancellation of the vote results in France and the Netherlands and to agree that there is no need to directly seek the agreement of the British people to changes in our own constitutional structures.
So to address your question, Britain no longer needs the EU. We do not need and should shun such an undemocratic and anti-democratic entity such as this. We have other options. There are more democratic states such as oil-rich Norway and Russia where voting results are still respected. History has shown us that anti-democratic entities such as the EU will seek more and more power in order to control an unwilling public, perhaps engaging in direct military conflict with more efficient and democratic nations. Let’s just learn the lessons of history now and stay clear from these philistines and you losers should change your Party’s leadership (or change your name to Liberal Autocrats)
June 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I think that the most striking difference between the government of a representative democracy like the UK and a supranational organisation like the EU is that all national policy makers (the Cabinet, the Prime Minister) are elected from Parliament - the party with the most support of the House gets to choose its ministers, and its leader becomes the Prime Minister.
I think that that is one of the major changes that the EU could do to make it more democratic. Firstly, change the UK’s party-list voting system for the European Parliament to one with a direct link to constituents (STV would be the best), and secondly have the largest party in the EP (currently the Grand Coalition EPP-ED/PES) form the Commission (under Lisbon this would be 18 members, two-thirds of member-states represented in rotating groups).
The Council is a different matter. I agree with George Turner: “Currently with the powers of decision in the council EU law has to be approved by all member states or a qualified majority of states representing over two thirds of the European population.” That system should remain - as a balance against the EP, where decisions are irrelevant of national positions. There is still the issue of the perceived lack of democracy of the Council - I don’t know if that could be solved without removing national influence.
I support the European project, its aims and what it tries to solve. But I think that Europeans’ tolerance of further integration is at a limit in the EU’s current state. I don’t think that it would be wise to pool more sovereignty until the public are much more comfortable with the EU’s accountability. That should be solved by changing the EU, and/or by having a national debate with all the facts and a referendum or some other form of consent from the people on the idea of a more synchronised Europe (retrospective and for the future). Such a consent would be much more valuable for Europe in the long term - history shows how governments that neglect voters’ views too much soon find themselves stuck in a process that leads ultimately to do exactly what they didn’t want.