Hungarian paper: Referendum results might prompt EU 'renewal'SourceJun 9, 2005, 14:22 GMT
The EU has had a number of major dilemmas for a long time now, but it has been unable to face these problems for several reasons. The rejection of the constitutional agreement in two states regarded as core members so far will hopefully trigger a shock effect that the EU needs to successfully continue unifying Europe through enlarging and deepening the community.
The beneficial effect of the French and the Dutch no votes might be that the EU will not be able to pretend that nothing has happened, acknowledging the results with a shrug, as it would presumably have happened if a UK vote had yielded similar results. It is good that the exposure has taken place during a relatively early phase of the ratification process, when there is still time left to repair the damage. This will allow European leaders to consider why European nations increasingly often question the rationale behind this historical venture, why nationalism and left-wing and right-wing populism are being revived in Europe, and to draw the appropriate consequences with view to rethinking, reformulating, and reviving the European integration process. That is, European leaders might want to do this if they have the courage to do so, which they have not had so far. As a result, serious crisis symptoms are detectable in the EU.
Fast and large-scale enlargement questions one of the basic EU tenets so far - one of the most important and usually pretentiously unacknowledged reasons why most new members join the EU - the promise of affluence. The idea is that the community provides funding to assist new members in catching up with existing members to reach the average within the foreseeable future. This promise has been already compromised when the sums originally designated for three new members were suddenly reshuffled to cover the accession of 10 new member states. Plans for further enlargement make the implementation of the principle in question even more dubious. Turkey's and Ukraine's potential accession would not allow for as much as formal adherence to the plans.
This situation connects the worst possible implications. First of all, the citizens of the old and well-to-do member states assume that enlargement is unbearably expensive, and that it will take away some of their jobs and bring lots of foreigners to their countries. As a result, old member state populations are increasingly sceptical not only about enlargement but the usefulness of the enlarged EU in general. Secondly, new member states are bound to get disappointed: EU membership does not mean getting rich fast. Thirdly, the remaining major economic discrepancies hamper EU functioning, especially once the common currency is introduced, and, most especially, considering that the criteria of joining the euro zone do not specify any developmental conditions at all. (It makes a difference whether a country has a 3 per cent budget deficit when its GDP per head rate is 2,000 euros or 20,000 euros.) In addition, from a certain perspective, the criteria do not favour fast economic expansion either, so they might slow adjustment (for which only limited sources are available anyway) down.
However, the EU is not willing to face these problems, and, by doing so, it does not only pave the way for the disillusionment of the prospective enlargement candidates with unfounded expectations, but also undermines backing for integration in the "old" member states.
This loss of authenticity is likely to further deepen the gap that increasingly separates EU institutions from community residents. People in the street have the impression that the EU is facing a marked democracy deficit, and that Brussels decision-makers - especially the European Commission - are not concerned about public opinion, and are not even aware of people's expectations about the EU.
It needs to be acknowledged that these assumptions are right to a certain extent. Because the authenticity of the practice of representative democracy has been undermined generally and at national levels alike, most people think that they are not suitably represented in decision-making, and that their interests are not getting appropriately asserted. If this is so, then one of the crucial democratic principles - implementing the people's will - is what is being challenged in people's eyes.
In addition to the usual domestic political motives, the general lack of trust in the EU and the lack of adequate preparation and, especially, the lack of adequate information and arguments for enlargement have been the reasons for the apparently anti-EU referendum outcomes in France and the Netherlands. Anyway, it is insinuating to make a document of several hundred pages the subject of a referendum, as it seems obvious that only a handful of people will read it. This suggests that the authorities expect people to vote on what politics tells them about the document rather than the document itself. Of course, this is often the case, but in other cases, there is at least a chance of the voters thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the subject, which is essentially out of the question in this case. There is no reason to expect voters to go through the text and, particularly, to understand it and gauge its potential impact.
The "Constitution" itself is a mistaken concept in my view. The constitutional agreement is not what its name suggests at all: A detailed document of several hundred pages is not a constitution. However, the EU needs a constitution indeed. The community needs a constitution that meets the criteria for such a document: it should set the basic principles of the given entity and describe the practice and the distribution of power. These principles are mostly included in the current Constitution, but they have been totally pointlessly mixed with several hundreds of pages of detailed procedure rules that have nothing to do with the constitution, and that do not need to (and cannot) be made the subject of a referendum. However, all member states should indeed approve an appropriate constitution through referendums, whereas the "rest" should be approved by the European Parliament, the European Council, and the European Commission.
So what is to be done? How could this undoubtedly dangerous fiasco be turned into an opportunity?
Firstly, it needs to be understood and admitted that the EU has distanced itself from the people, and that it will have to face quite serious difficulties in the longer term unless it returns to its democratic roots. This would not mean limiting Brussels authority but the radical reinforcement of democratic processes through increasing transparency and strengthening the role of the European Parliament so that it has the same authority at EU level as the national parliaments do in their countries. Why should there be any difference?
It would be important to make EU activities more reasonable so that the purpose of its actions becomes clear, and so that member state citizens understand the functioning and the advantages of the EU.
Secondly, the Constitution needs to be reworked with view to creating an adequate constitution. The constitutional principles belonging in the constitution and the regulations serving their implementation need to be separated. The former should be summarized in a brief and succinct constitution, whereas the latter should be passed through the regular EU procedure. Then the new constitution should indeed go through a vote in all member states.
Thirdly, the EU enlargement policy needs to be rethought. As for the accessions already announced, Romania, Bulgaria (and Croatia as well) should be offered realistic assessment and a realistic picture of what the purpose of the EU is and what they might expect from the EU. In the case of Turkey and Ukraine, the EU should consider whether the enlargement policy applied so far is indeed the only workable solution. The community should look at how it might integrate Turkey and, within a relatively short period of time, Ukraine as well into the common EU foreign and defence framework in the foreseeable future but before full membership.
The point is that the fiasco offers a great opportunity for self-examination and tackling the problems. If we fail to take advantage of this opportunity, the downfall might begin. People interested in maintaining, expanding, and deepening the EU must not turn a deaf ear to the existing problems or pretend that these problems do not exist, subordinating the future of Europe to petty party political and election goals. Europe needs fresh energy, and this energy might only come from the European nations. Europe needs statesmen instead of politicians and renewal instead of helplessness, pretentiousness, and inactivity. Otherwise, nationalism and populism will prevail over European unity and democracy.
Source: Nepszabadsag web site, Budapest, in Hungarian 3 Jun 05
BBC Mon EU1 EuroPol kb
Copyright 2005 BBC Monitoring Service distributed by United Press International