Saturday, June 18, 2005
The Future of Europe
An earthquake of unprecedented scale has rocked the EU over the past month. By any account, it began with the French rejection of the Union's constitution. At the least, the current row over the Union's budget is a powerful aftershock. It may be an equal or greater temblor altogether.
At times of greatest stress, Jacques Chirac goes ahead and vents. A political leader of middling caliber, who won reelection in 2002 primarily because his opponent was an avowed racist, he is, yet, fully the Gaullist. The political ability of Charles de Gaulle has been much celebrated, but I think we forget how often the general blundered and then fulminated. Both Chirac and de Gaulle make use of the political tantrum. Both subscribe to the delusion of France somehow standing atop a pyramid formed by the other European states, triumphantly battling an Anglo-Saxon colossus and undoing the humiliations of 1940 or perhaps Agincourt. The Gaullist method has been regnant in France since the fall of the Fourth Republic and it has fostered perhaps the most astringent political culture in Europe. Jacques Chirac is too mediocre to have invented the Gaullist tantrum. When he tells Eastern European leaders that they were not brought up well, or calls Tony Blair pathetic, he is merely a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage.
The issue at question is emblematic of the faltering EU: Tony Blair refused to concede Britain's agricultural rebate without a commensurate reduction by France of its own agricultural subsidy. For decades, France has claimed the lion's share of agricultural subsidies, protecting a sector that other countries (like Britain) were forced to reform decades ago. France has long acted as though it was above the rules; several years back, it gave itself special permission to have a budget deficit. The seamless conflation of European interests with French interests has gone on for decades. No longer. As Blair put it,
The era of Chirac is ending. Gerhard Schroeder is in deep trouble and is likely to lose to the more Atlanticist Angela Merkel. Germany may return to its prior role as a continental balancer between Britain and France, just as the future of the EU is on the line.
What is the future of the EU? This timely Observer editorial makes plain that it may lie with Tony Blair. In his last term, Blair may yet have the chance to profoundly shape the future of the entire continent. Britain has been an outsider to the European integration process for decades; during the 1950s it remained outside, while attempting to devise looser alternatives to political integration. In 1963, de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application to join the then-Common Market. Since then, Britain has been the largest of the EU latecomers.
What may emerge from this mess is an EU that more conforms with the older British vision of Europe as a looser confederation of nation-states. This offers a less rigid structure than the French vision - and one that might allow the Union to be broadened to outliers like Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. A broader Union might prove more fertile ground for creating lasting transnational institutions. It may be a longshot - since Chirac won't be leaving the picture anytime soon, but Britain's impending European presidency may offer London its best chance to shape the future of Europe - ever.
At times of greatest stress, Jacques Chirac goes ahead and vents. A political leader of middling caliber, who won reelection in 2002 primarily because his opponent was an avowed racist, he is, yet, fully the Gaullist. The political ability of Charles de Gaulle has been much celebrated, but I think we forget how often the general blundered and then fulminated. Both Chirac and de Gaulle make use of the political tantrum. Both subscribe to the delusion of France somehow standing atop a pyramid formed by the other European states, triumphantly battling an Anglo-Saxon colossus and undoing the humiliations of 1940 or perhaps Agincourt. The Gaullist method has been regnant in France since the fall of the Fourth Republic and it has fostered perhaps the most astringent political culture in Europe. Jacques Chirac is too mediocre to have invented the Gaullist tantrum. When he tells Eastern European leaders that they were not brought up well, or calls Tony Blair pathetic, he is merely a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage.
The issue at question is emblematic of the faltering EU: Tony Blair refused to concede Britain's agricultural rebate without a commensurate reduction by France of its own agricultural subsidy. For decades, France has claimed the lion's share of agricultural subsidies, protecting a sector that other countries (like Britain) were forced to reform decades ago. France has long acted as though it was above the rules; several years back, it gave itself special permission to have a budget deficit. The seamless conflation of European interests with French interests has gone on for decades. No longer. As Blair put it,
I'm afraid I'm not prepared to have someone tell me that theirs is the only view of what Europe is. Europe isn't owned by anybody. Europe is owned by all of us.
The era of Chirac is ending. Gerhard Schroeder is in deep trouble and is likely to lose to the more Atlanticist Angela Merkel. Germany may return to its prior role as a continental balancer between Britain and France, just as the future of the EU is on the line.
What is the future of the EU? This timely Observer editorial makes plain that it may lie with Tony Blair. In his last term, Blair may yet have the chance to profoundly shape the future of the entire continent. Britain has been an outsider to the European integration process for decades; during the 1950s it remained outside, while attempting to devise looser alternatives to political integration. In 1963, de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application to join the then-Common Market. Since then, Britain has been the largest of the EU latecomers.
What may emerge from this mess is an EU that more conforms with the older British vision of Europe as a looser confederation of nation-states. This offers a less rigid structure than the French vision - and one that might allow the Union to be broadened to outliers like Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. A broader Union might prove more fertile ground for creating lasting transnational institutions. It may be a longshot - since Chirac won't be leaving the picture anytime soon, but Britain's impending European presidency may offer London its best chance to shape the future of Europe - ever.
