French angst about Europe owes much to enlargement, and much also to worries about immigration and globalisation. Whereas France felt confident of its leading role in an EU of 15 countries, in an EU of 25 or more it is starting to feel unhappily overwhelmed. The idea that Turkey might one day join the Union weighs heavily on public opinion in France, as it does in Germany and Austria.The magazine also suggests a new approach for EU-crats:
France fears not merely that it is losing its historic leadership of the Union, but also that enlargement is bringing in more low-wage, low-tax countries which will further undermine, through competition, the French model of big government and high taxes. It may well be right. Lithuania's tax burden in 2003 was 28.7% of GDP, 17 percentage points less than the French equivalent. Slovakia's 19% flat rate for all main taxes—personal, corporate and VAT—has become the envy of the region. But in the French view all this amounts to “fiscal dumping” by the new members—using low tax rates to lure jobs and investment away from western Europe, then balancing the state budget with EU cash from French and German pockets. The charge is wrong, but try telling France that.
The new members also tend to be much more Atlanticist in their foreign relations. In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 they mostly supported America, leading France's president, Jacques Chirac, to say that they had missed a good opportunity to shut up. The phrase still rankles.
“Now they know we are not going to keep quiet,” says Eduard Kukan, Slovakia's foreign minister.
Europe's leaders tend to be foolish, as the current hysteria about a possible French no to the EU's constitutional treaty on May 29th shows. Indeed, when some assert that a no will mean the end of Europe, one wonders not just about their judgment but about their belief in democracy. One aim of this constitution was to bring the EU closer to ordinary people. If the people choose to reject the result, should they be blamed—or the leaders who tried to sell them such an incomprehensible text?This seems so sensible as to guarantee Europe will ignore it.
As it happens, there are four weeks to go before the vote in France. Despite a string of negative polls, a yes remains possible. But there are at least eight referendums to come after this one, including a Dutch one three days later. To anybody but Europe's foolish leaders, this should make it obvious that they need to think of an alternative: a plan B. And it is equally obvious what such a plan B should be. If the present text proves unacceptable, the EU must go away and produce another that is shorter, simpler and sets out the distribution of powers more clearly—and is thus more readily saleable to voters.
More:
Daniel at Bloggledygook bets the Netherlands votes "nee":
[A] desire to turn their gaze away from a centralized, undemocratic, autocratic government in Brussels dominated by larger countries with their hands out towards fixing their own home has crept into the Dutch psyche after decades of attempts at a continental consensus.
2 comments:
I like that The Economist will come out and write the truth - that the current EU leadership obviously is both foolish and undemocratic. Even the way that they are talking about the possibility demonstrates that they have contempt for the average European.
Who would want to vote for a document such as the EU Constitution when the people who wrote it think like that?
Because – as their birthrate reflects – Western Europe’s surrendered to nihilism.
Post a Comment