Europe's Resurrection

Europe needs a new plan. Though the EU successfully integrated Europe's economies (excepting farm subsidies and movement of labor), political consolidation stalled when French and Dutch voters nixed the Constitution. Suddenly most are debating the future of the EU--and thus of Europe. Abruptly, paraphrasing Mark Twain, "The reports of the [death of nation-states] are greatly exaggerated."

For the most part, this dialog dodges consensus on the extent of government regulation. Instead, the conversation centers on promoting participatory democracy under a federalist structure, thus reducing (to the extent possible) centrally imposed compulsion. In other words, choosing a path that promotes individual liberty. No objective is more central to Western Civilization than the preservation of liberty; no goal is more appropriately addressed in Europe today.

I have a modest proposal. My recommendation begins by re-examining the EU's history, highlights the current platform of English Conservatives and considers the experience of EEA nations such as Norway.

Roots and Purpose: The EU tried to sell a 448 Article, 191 page unreadable Constitution. Fortunately, the drafters didn't hide the document's fundamental flaw--it's in the preamble's second clause: "BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants. . ." Huh? Re-united necessarily implies a prior attempt. But as Andrew Stuttaford observed, "Unless I missed something in my history classes "Europe" has never been one whole. There is nothing to reunite."

Not for lack of trying. History highlights increasingly ephemeral efforts founded on force: Rome, Holy Rome Napoleon's Continental System, Nazism. Less ambitious, but longer-lived, transnational bodies such as postal and telecommunications conventions transferred little or no national sovereignty. Hitler's no more; the Universal Postal Union still functions.

The EU itself started modestly. The European Coal and Steel Community, founded by six nations in 1951, only established "an economic community" through "a common market." The 1957 Treaty of Rome created a more ambitious European Economic Community, designed to foster "an internal market characterized by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital." But the treaty also confirmed various trans-national institutions to which diverse aspects of national sovereignty were transferred over time. Still, "[a]lthough the EEC Treaty was wider in scope than the other two, all three Treaties covered well-defined economic spheres."

Subsequent treaties shed the economic focus. As DL said on Kosmoblog:

As the ECC evolved into the Common Market, then the European Community (EC), and finally the European Union (EU), it transformed from an organization pursing like-minded economic interests to one that had political goals as its overriding concern. Harmonizing social programs, developing a common foreign policy, and raising a European security force all took precedence over providing consumers in one country the ability to take advantage of another member country’s efficiencies whether it involved selling insurance or manufacturing automobiles. Protectionism became the common denominator as compromises were struck that allowed homegrown industries that should have disappeared long ago to remain in business via tax funded subsidizes.

The overwhelming urge of European governments to engage in economic social engineering on a continent wide scale was itself enough to assure EU collapse. The apparatus that comes with administering such a system is a bureaucratic nightmare and it comes in addition to already top-heavy European national governments.

And each new step was accomplished by treaties devolving ever increasing sovereignty away from national governments to the EU bureaucracy--foreign and security policy and national currencies. The Amsterdam Agreement merged Europe's social and worker obligations, anti-discrimination measures, substantial policing powers and a definition of human rights. The Constitution -- originally supposed to consolidate the various treaties -- would have swiped and centralized still more sovereignty, essentially irrevocably.

Though starting with economic and trade reform, the EU morphed into centrally mandated usurpation of traditional European nation-states. History teaches that these concepts need not be linked.

British Conservatives: The Tories are famously fractious about Europe. Europe squabbles dislodged Prime Minister Thatcher and her successor, John Major.

Though they just lost their third election to Labour's Tony Blair, conservatives suddenly are smiling. Historically, the Tory stance on the EU was skeptical but split. The French and Dutch vote froze European integration, suspending England's need for a "European" policy. That unified the Conservatives and made Blair's Labour government an inviting target.

The British battle's begun, kicked off, says Richard at EU Referendum, by Foreign Secretary Straw's wooly and weak plan--"We reserve completely the right to bring back for consideration the Bill providing for a UK referendum should circumstances change." Shadow foreign minister Liam Fox's response was both Python-esque and persuasive:

What we would have liked to see from the Government today is a little less spin and little more humility. The idea that the United Kingdom achieved all its key objectives at the intergovernmental conference or kept our national veto in all key areas of concern is a complete fantasy.

This constitution is bad for Britain and bad for Europe, and it has now been comprehensively rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands, yet the political dinosaurs at the helm in France and Germany, and the army of Eurocrats whose careers depend on the gravy train, act as though nothing at all has happened. What is it about "no" that they do not understand? I may no longer practise medicine, but I can tell a corpse when I see one, and this constitution is a case for the morgue if ever I saw one. This is a dead constitution. . . [W]ill the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that there will be no attempt to introduce any part of this constitution by the back door? . . .

Europe is having its "emperor's new clothes" moment, and the voters have seen through the self-serving agenda of Europe's ruling elite. We now need to get on with building a different Europe—a Europe that works with, not against, the instincts of nation states, and in which sovereign countries co-operate where it is in their mutual interests to do so but retain the freedom to act independently when their national interests require it. . . My advice to the Foreign Secretary is, "Have some courage man, and declare this constitution dead".

We should all thank the Dutch and the French for their liberation from the constitution negotiated by the Prime Minister. The game is now up for Europe's political elite. The people of Europe must be the masters now.

By plumping for increased involvement of the electorate and retention of national sovereignty and federalism, England's Conservatives abruptly captured the moral high ground. That same advantage is available to Europe and the EU as a whole--if the EU's goals are clarified.

Union of National Sovereigns: Brussels overreached by seeking a federal system minus the federalism. Liam Fox properly praised the French and Dutch electorates--for a justifiable mercy killing. That approach now blocked, the EU must reform without vacuuming the sovereignty of members. The question is, how can that be accomplished?

By exploring other, different models. One such approach already exists, by virtue of the fact that all of Europe did not enter the Union immediately or even at all. Before they joined the EU, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Portugal joined a European Free Trade Association which, for the most part, enjoyed the tariff-free common market aspects of Union. Four other countries (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) never joined, but all today are treated like EU countries for trade purposes, all but Switzerland via the European Economic Area (EEA). That agreement guarantees the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital between EEA and EU members. EEA members must, however, adopt EU-compatible laws on social policy, consumer protection, the environment and corporate law, and to abide by EU court decisions.

So what's wrong with EEA? Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are reasonably prosperous and tiny Liechtenstein is booming. Yet these nations aren't as slaved to Brussels as current EU countries. If the French and Dutch voters killed an "ever closer union," why not return to the EU's historic roots: free trade. Maybe even without matching regulations about the environment.

Conclusion: The French and Dutch referendums finish off the fantasy of European unanimity. Different peoples -- call them nations -- have different needs and different public policies. Europeans say they want to cooperate, but cooperation is not capitulation. Democracy depends on the people's will. Subsidiarity suggests seeking support on a localized basis, the smallest practicable unit of government. Experience, including EEA, teaches that variance between European nations need not outlawed, that peace and prosperity flourish even absent conformity. Empowering elites rarely maximizes liberty.

Europe's rejected devolving more sovereignty to the center. Who can blame them? The Europe of the future will resemble some earlier drafts. No borders need move. Europe's governments and the EU must re-invigorate representative democracies responsible to Europeans--reflective of each electorate's idea of freedom. One size just won't fit all.

More:

Melanie Phillips thinks the U.K. should quit the EU.

(via reader Alex Harris)