I have a feeling that this triology might be rather like Back to the Future. The first will be good, the second less so, and the third the best. Still, trends are there to be bucked, so here's my attempt.
Over the three days I was in Brussels I attended presentations by the Parliament, Commission and Council of the EU, and one by the Dutch Embassy as well. I can't pretend to know that much about the functioning of the EU but I'd always been rather sceptical about the whole thing.
All of the people we spoke to were interesting and most were good at speaking, which was a good start, but even when they professed to speaking off the record, or wanted to give off the impression that they were being controversial, I couldn't help but feeling they weren't. 'Revelations' about the EU Constitution, the French being stubborn and the English selfish are hardly earth shattering but they were dressed up that way. The fact that two people in different institutions told the same joke just further suggested they were towing the same time. Still, the presentations weren't just full of the usual brochure material and for the most part our questions were answered.
I heard some worrying things though. The first relates to the way the Council works. For instance, Austria has no coastline, so it offers its votes on maritime policy to countries with coastlines in return for their support in matters of importance to Austria. This was sold to us as negotiation, but it strikes me as being little better than bartering, and that can hardly be a suitable way to run a union of 25 states. Secondly, it was openly admitted that getting Switzerland to join the EU would be a 'good catch' as the EU 'needs a rich state'. No mention of the benefits to Switzerland from membership. Thirdly, I cannot for the life of me comprehend the need of the EU Parliament to move to Strasbourg once every month 'all expenses paid'. The main chamber in Brussels is used for a total of six days a year. Apparently this set up is mandated by a treaty, but to me its symptomatic of the public perception of waste and inefficiency at the EU level. By all means have the Parliament in Strasbourg, or Brussels or even Warsaw, but don't move it around. Fourthly the Commission seemed proud to have over 60 buildings to its name. 60 buildings for 25 Commissioners. Right. Fifthly, did you know that Morocco enquired about the possibility of joining? I didn't because the EU didn't want to publicise the fact. The fact that an African nation wanted to join the European Union is something that should be debated in public, but by burying it the EU prevented this. For a Union that constantly talks about how it needs to communicate with the public, this seems inexcusable and smacks of hypocrisy. Sixthly, the attitude towards the Constitution was worrying. Most people seemed to think the biggest problem was calling it a constitution instead of a treaty. Of course, the 'no' votes in France and the Netherlands were more of a protest against everything instead of the contents of the constitution in particular, but to take the approach that the name was the biggest problem seems slightly patronising.
We heard something interesting about the future of Belgium at the Dutch Embassy. Although it was just an opinion, I hadn't realised quite how federal Belgium was - it has 6 different governments, and then different hierarchies within these governments. It all stems from the fact that there are three official languages and that people strongly associate with their region over the country. There are serious political moves to make Belgium confederal, rather like Switzerland, but crucially there's no strong bond between the different people, rather unlike Switzerland. It was suggested that this could well lead to Belgium breaking up into four different countries as aside from federal regions, namely; the French speaking, the Flemish speaking, the German speaking, and Brussels. If this happened, then it's likely that Brussels could become the capital of the EU outside of a member country, in the much same way as Washington DC isn't in a state in the USA. I know how feasible the whole thing is, but I thought the whole possibility was interesting and could herald quite a big change for the identity of the EU if it gets its own official capital city. Perhaps it'll give me a reason to go back to Brussels in 20 or 30 years.
If Brussels were to become the designated capital of the EU then it might solve another problem, namely the apparent ambivalence of the EU to the situation in Brussels itself. It was striking how well developed the EU quarter is compared to the rest of the city. There were an appalling number of homeless people for a place where so much money is washing around ,and too many places just had a feeling of being completely run down. One person admitted how the EU had pushed up prices, but then remarked that they had expenses, including rent, paid for. So I guess that means it's not a problem that needs addressing. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that at the moment, Brussels is Belgium's problem, with the EU just being a resident guest. If Brussels became the EU's responsibility then perhaps this would change and it might actually take more care of its surroundings.
I don't know. That's all very sceptical, but I came away with one overwhelming positive about the EU. Th EU was the reason I was there. Not only was I visiting it, but I'm only on an Erasmus scheme because it's administered and run by the EU itself. That's what I think the EU excels at, namely bringing different European countries and peoples together. I met some great people, and I'm constantly meeting great people. I was surprised by how many people wrapped themselves in the EU flag to be photographed over their national flags. There is a sense of belonging on the Continent that just doesn't exist in the UK, and I don't know why that is. Living here I feel as if I belong to Europe, just not to the European Union. To me, geography, culture and friendship provide a greater bond than economics and politics. The EU may help facilitate the former, but I don't think it exclusively provides it.
As it currently stands I can't deny that the EU does good and I think for it to fail now would cause much greater hardship than could ever be justified and I don't think the UK pulling out would solve anything. What it needs is reform. Either it downsizes in size and role, or it democratises itself and becomes more transparent. I have trouble explaining how the EU works. Until it has an easily recognisable legislature and executive, modelled on the systems in member states that can be understood by the people, the EU is forever going to be seen as remote and aloof. Only when the institutions become truly open and people are fully involved by the direct election of executive members and the President, will I feel justified in defending it.
No comments:
Post a Comment