I keep on repeating myself. It still bothers me why the European project does not have a clear acceptable description of what it is. Why almost 60 years after the Declaration of Robert Schuman we did not agree where we want to go and how we want to do it.
Ok, we are learning by doing. Who would ever say that these poor, post-communist Poles with many complexes and fighting style will ever steer the European project (second half of 2011). Do we really trust others that they will take into account our interest and not drive through our country like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin used to do. Each nation state has gone through a long debate about issues like what means human rights (right to kill, right to believe, right to protest, right to protect). And actually the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a good exercise in creating ambiguous compromises and blurring the meaning of words. I think this debate is not over but we need it. This is a major debate of any federalism: how far can a central judiciary intervene in the parts which compose the polity. I think we need a debate about the rights of gay marriages in less liberal states. And the rights of gypsies to settle down on the outskirts of Rome. And the rights of employers to sack all the workers and bring Latvian cheaper workforce with a temporary contract.
I think we have forgotten that building of the single market was not the aim in itself. That it is only a tool for a greater cause. And this cause is much closer to the Kantian proposal to establish peace among nations. And even if 55 years after the world war II we already think it is unthinkable again we still need to go back to this primary preoccupation and bring back its own sense.
Bacause both the conference in Hague in 1949 (establishement of the Council of Europe) and the Schuman declaration had this basic preoccupation in mind. But to be really in line with the facts, the institutional structure proposed by Schuman has changed considerable over time as a result of internal negotiations and changing priorities.
But when I hear all these discussions about 'Europe puissance' - the power of Europe, it is really the old French dream of establishing world rules that comes to my mind. Yes we have interests and want to spread our values. But really a common foreign policy which is the reason for criticising Europe is at the end a secondary preoccupation. The major one was always internal. The Americans via NATO took care of Western Europe external security, so there was only the inner one to cope then. But it is true that one day the external security might become the primary one. Terrorism in fact is a serious threat. But still many times this comes eventually back to the one of integration of foreigners (Muslem British or Germans) in the societies. There is also state terrorism which has not die out with the end of cold war. But I think I shall come back to these issues later because the logic of this post is getting lost.
Still this is the major challenge of writing about EU. Whatever you start with it brings you always to other issues and it is difficult to conclude.
So coming back to the issue of Convention (on the Future of Europe). Did it fail or not really?
It failed largely because:
1. It failed to attract enough media and politician attention before the closing months when the real articles of the 'Constitutional Treaty' have been assambled together.
2. It produced a long juridical text which does not pass the test of explaining or resolving the fundamental dillemas of the European project. It has been kidnapped by lawyers.
3. It (President) forced a controversial idea of changing voting rules in the name of efficiency and simplicity, which applied directly create a risk of giving too substantial powers to the largest nation states.
It succeeded because:
1. It has initiated a huge debate inside EU and closed the period when European politics has been confined to elitist groups.
2. It has shown to many federalists the limits of comparison with USA and the process of statebuilding and the mobilising force of European ideal.
3. The Convention has established a precedent/model of debate and negotiation which is superior to the model of Intergovernmental Conferences.
Ok, that's it for now. I will come back to these issues again.
Ok, we are learning by doing. Who would ever say that these poor, post-communist Poles with many complexes and fighting style will ever steer the European project (second half of 2011). Do we really trust others that they will take into account our interest and not drive through our country like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin used to do. Each nation state has gone through a long debate about issues like what means human rights (right to kill, right to believe, right to protest, right to protect). And actually the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a good exercise in creating ambiguous compromises and blurring the meaning of words. I think this debate is not over but we need it. This is a major debate of any federalism: how far can a central judiciary intervene in the parts which compose the polity. I think we need a debate about the rights of gay marriages in less liberal states. And the rights of gypsies to settle down on the outskirts of Rome. And the rights of employers to sack all the workers and bring Latvian cheaper workforce with a temporary contract.
I think we have forgotten that building of the single market was not the aim in itself. That it is only a tool for a greater cause. And this cause is much closer to the Kantian proposal to establish peace among nations. And even if 55 years after the world war II we already think it is unthinkable again we still need to go back to this primary preoccupation and bring back its own sense.
Bacause both the conference in Hague in 1949 (establishement of the Council of Europe) and the Schuman declaration had this basic preoccupation in mind. But to be really in line with the facts, the institutional structure proposed by Schuman has changed considerable over time as a result of internal negotiations and changing priorities.
But when I hear all these discussions about 'Europe puissance' - the power of Europe, it is really the old French dream of establishing world rules that comes to my mind. Yes we have interests and want to spread our values. But really a common foreign policy which is the reason for criticising Europe is at the end a secondary preoccupation. The major one was always internal. The Americans via NATO took care of Western Europe external security, so there was only the inner one to cope then. But it is true that one day the external security might become the primary one. Terrorism in fact is a serious threat. But still many times this comes eventually back to the one of integration of foreigners (Muslem British or Germans) in the societies. There is also state terrorism which has not die out with the end of cold war. But I think I shall come back to these issues later because the logic of this post is getting lost.
Still this is the major challenge of writing about EU. Whatever you start with it brings you always to other issues and it is difficult to conclude.
So coming back to the issue of Convention (on the Future of Europe). Did it fail or not really?
It failed largely because:
1. It failed to attract enough media and politician attention before the closing months when the real articles of the 'Constitutional Treaty' have been assambled together.
2. It produced a long juridical text which does not pass the test of explaining or resolving the fundamental dillemas of the European project. It has been kidnapped by lawyers.
3. It (President) forced a controversial idea of changing voting rules in the name of efficiency and simplicity, which applied directly create a risk of giving too substantial powers to the largest nation states.
It succeeded because:
1. It has initiated a huge debate inside EU and closed the period when European politics has been confined to elitist groups.
2. It has shown to many federalists the limits of comparison with USA and the process of statebuilding and the mobilising force of European ideal.
3. The Convention has established a precedent/model of debate and negotiation which is superior to the model of Intergovernmental Conferences.
Ok, that's it for now. I will come back to these issues again.
