Is the EU failing in its mission and goal of inclusion and unity and the creation of a European nation? The anti-EU camp claims that there is little support for the Union and that this support is dwindling. The latest EU wide poll from December last year shows a slightly more balanced picture.
There is no question that it is troubling that 50% feel that they have little confidence in their own government, on the other hand 75% want a common constitution. What does ‘not a good thing’ mean?
The poll also shows that only/as much as 50% of the electorate supports the expansion plans into the East.
Are the Eurosceptics right? Is the Union failing, or is this fluctuating mistrust and ambiguous support just a consequence of peoples fear of the new and a natural step in the process of unifying the EU states under one federal rule?
You confuse me. Your quote says 50% have no confidence in the EU. You then say it’s worrying they do not have confidence in their own government.
Now perhaps this isn’t a sentiment common across Europe, but I don’t actually feel the EU is my government. In it’s current set up it’s a franco-german dominated organisation, where time and again we’ve seen countries flout it’s decisions when it suits them, yet cry foul when others do it.
Half of the electorate do not have confidence in the EU. This is hardly surprising, since we are seeing voters becoming disenfranchised from their own governments in their own countries; I would guess that confidence in an institution even further removed from people’s day-to-day lives is bound to be lower. When you factor in the fact that most of us hear only hear bad news about the EU (they’re meddling! they’re corrupt! they’re re-designing their flag!), it’s amazing that even 50% of people still have faith in the idea.
However, bad press cannot be blamed for the problems - after all, the press only pander to what the public wants to hear. National governments get just as much bad press as the EU does, but the level of resentment felt towards the EU at times is very different from that focussed on our national governments.
But why is this? Why do so many people see the EU as something to be tolerated rather than embraced?
The lumbering nature of the EU institutions must be something to do with it, as must the corruption we hear about, and unaccountability of many of the bodies (remember how the Commission refused to reveal the amount of money that had gone missing from its aid programme in ´98?).
There is also a distinct lack of connection between the EU and the people living in the countries that are members of the group: as an example, think how the expansion programme is carrying on, even though the Irish have not agreed to it (and the EU cannot be enlarged until the Irish have agreed). The thinking seems to be that the Irish will agree to it - which seems a little presumptious.
However, I think the real problem is seen in statements such as this:
You say “their own government”, whereas very few people think of the EU as “their own government”. Our own governments are our national governments; the EU is a body set up between these governments.
Let me pick one more quote, then I can get to the point:
See, here again, the underlining assumption here is that
(a) unifying the nations of the EU into a federal system is an inevitable result, or a foregone conclusion,
(b) to not wish to push integration any further is “Eurosceptism” (with all the baggage that this name carries), although many people (even in the UK!) do not want any further integration, but would not want to leave the EU, and
(c) any mistrust is due to people’s fear, rather than just plain old mistrust of the people running the show.
You see, as far as I see it, the problem with the Union is that it is trying to build a country from top down, rather than sorting out the basics and then building up. A natural evolution of a federal system would probably work itself out if the thing was left alone, but instead a flag, anthem, groaning bureaucracies, a common currency and talk of “our nation” is imposed without any real engagement of the people. Let the trading partnership develop of its own accord, and then start thinking about trying to stamp a Euro-identity on the whole thing.
In fact, not only does putting the cart before the horse end up leaving people behind, it just makes things worse than they should be. Look at the Euro - it was introduced without asking many of the member nations, and cut corners and fudged economic tests in order to get it launched mice and quickly with a good number of members. And what has happened? Apart from causing some (not a lot, though) of resentment, it has collapsed in value by 30%.
The whole European project is alien to most people. Sure, you and some others may get all teary-eyed at the prospect of a “Euro-nation”, but to most people it is just irrelevant. We want our trains to run, we want our jobs to be secure, we want our kids educated. The idea of messing around trying to bring together a group of hugely different nations into one country is pretty low on anyone’s agenda.
But most importantly, “Eurosceptic” shouldn’t be cried every time someone objects to further pushing of the EU agenda. Whether the EU likes it or not, people citizens of their country first, and the EU second. Every time people are “told off” for putting their nation first (witness the statements trooped out by EU officials about the UK having no wish to join the Euro), the EU is just alienating more people.
But, as for the main question in the OP: Is the EU failing? Well, it is succeeding in carrying out the vain dreams of the career-politicians sat in Brussels, but sadly it doesn’t seem to be carrying its people along with it.
Sparc, if any UK gov’t politician was daft enough to be drawn on whether the EU agenda included a federal Europe, my guess is they’d blow any chances of winning the Euro-referendum. Those words are anathema to many in the UK (I include myself).
That’s not to say that we are anti-EU. Just that I would prefer to keep national sovereignty as much as possible, while mutually agreeing to the dismantling of barriers to free trade. That’s what my parents thought they were signing up to in 197x when we had the referendum on joining the Common Market.
I haven’t got anything of much value to add to this debate, but I would just like to mention one point. The majority of the press (in the UK at least) seems very keen to only report on the scandals and controversy in the EU, and doesn’t run many reports on any good points. There was all that fuss in the UK about the EU dictating something about the size of bananas we must eat, for example. Speaking purely as someone who hasn’t looked into this (as I’m sure the majority of the UK population hasn’t) and has only seen the media reports, I can see why many people wouldn’t have confidence in the EU here. Frankly, I would be against being part of the EU on the strength on what I’ve read, but I will fully admit I have only seen the knee-jerk reports of the anti-EU press and haven’t looked into the good points of being in the EU. Again without knowing much about it, it seems the EU’s biggest problem is with its image.
I’m curious about the support for the Euro currency specifically - I remember talking about this one night with the German family I stayed with last summer. We were discussing the fact that the UK was allowed to keep the pound, because it was a strong currency and a point of national pride. Since the Deutschmark was another strong currency at the time, I asked them, “Then why not Germany?”
“Yes, why not Germany?” my host mom said, looking pretty pissed.
So, now that the Euro’s been around for a few months, is it shaping up OK, and do people have more confidence in it?
I’m curious about the support for the Euro currency specifically - I remember talking about this one night with the German family I stayed with last summer. We were discussing the fact that the UK was allowed to keep the pound, because it was a strong currency and a point of national pride. Since the Deutschmark was another strong currency at the time, I asked them, “Then why not Germany?”
“Yes, why not Germany?” my host mom said, looking pretty pissed.
So, now that the Euro’s been around for a few months, is it shaping up OK, and do people have more confidence in it?
I agree that it seems absurd to refer to the EU as “our government”. UDS, it’s not simply a matter of semantics, as the discussion here includes the way the institutions of the EU are perceived. And saying that the EU is “our government” when the vast majority of legislative decisions affecting our lives (in the UK) emanate from Westminster rather than Brussels is simply misleading.
The EU was started up as a trading union. Member states are meant to be able to trade freely with one another. In order to achieve that freedom, we get rulings on things which might affect it (crucially on free movement of goods and persons). In order that people from one state can work in another with minimum hassle we also get rulings that try to forbid discrimination and iron out differences in employment law. That’s the lovely, lollipop-land intention, anyway. It’s a free-trade association with bells on.
Personally, I feel that EU social legislation tends to have good effects in the UK: human rights law for example. I am glad that people who feel aggrieved at the actions of their state have a process (albeit a clunky and time consuming one) by which they can have those actions examined on a broader stage.
However, I would say that most people in the UK are leery of the concept of a European super-state. The machinery of the European institutions seems remote (who the heck knows who their MEP is, for example), and there is a feeling that there is a cavernous accountability gap. This is partly due to the generally stand-offish attitude that an island nation has to its nearest continent (although this doesn’t seem to have been such a huge problem for Ireland in respect of Europe). The press in the UK love to splash stories of Euro-craziness on their pages (I have a great list of headlines in a folder somewhere, all of them completely misleading): standardized sausages! British chocolate to be renamed “vegelate”! Peking duck to be renamed! Straight bananas! blah blah. We fear change. Witness the “metric martyrs”, gone to gaol for continuing to sell their fruit and veg in pounds and ounces. Apparently there is something inherently valuable in the imperial system of weights and measures.
It’s partly due to the fact that the machinery of the EU is remote, lumbering and opaque. To Brits who can barely grasp how their own country works (we hardly get taught anything about it at school), it’s a leap to put trust in something we understand so little about.
Education, I say. We may still reject it, but at least we’ll be better informed (as Humphrey might have said in Yes Minister)…
Tsarina as the survey of last December shows the support for the Euro outside Britain and Sweden had grown already before it was introduced as a real currency. When we did the shift in January this year the acceptance and the speed if the shift was way beyond the expected. Sweden, not having as good a ground to stand on as the Brits with the pound saw an immediate swing of public support towards the Euro. However polls still show that this support is lower than in the Euro zone.
Lately we have had some backlashes. I haven’t seen any actual figures in the last couple of months but there has been voices raised in regret of the shift. Some industries did not play through the shift along the rules and for instance the restaurant and hotel industry in Austria and Germany has been found to have hiked prices with up to 30%. Thankfully this is not the case in the majority of industry and trade and hence we have not seen rampant inflation. For me who takes most meals out of the home and travels quite a bit I can’t say that I am impressed, it’s putting a heavy dent in what is already a big expenditure post.
That disregardful the acceptance seems to be pretty high and in everyday life it’s not an issue. I know that some people feel nostalgic about their old currencies. Which there is some good ground for in for instance the Greek Drachma having been the oldest traded currency in the world at a couple of thousand years of age, or the French Franc the oldest centrally regulated one with regulation since the 14th century.
All in all it’s proving to be practical and many that I speak to see this, especially us that live on state boarders and crisscross over them with some frequency. Not that I am mathematically challenged, but only now when I don’t have to multiply by seven and some decimal can I truly see the price difference between Austria and Germany.
I’ll reply in time to the previous posts, but presently work calls.
You make fair points. I think there’s something of a “chicken-and-egg” situation here. Whatever you may feel about the powers of the EU, it’s undeniable that they are vastly less than the federal powers of the United States. And, correspondingly, the powers of the members states of the EU are vastly greater than the powers of the various states of the US.
The EU doesn’t affect people’s day-to-day lives in anything like the same way as the federal government in the US. And the issues that really concern citizens are all dealt with at the level of the member states. Taxes. Social security. The provision of health services. The provision of schools. There are some attempts at co-ordination, particularly in relation to social security and (to a very limited extent) tax but, even here, it’s not the EU forming a policy and imposing it on reluctant member states; it’s the EU acting as a forum in which the member states can co-ordinate their policies.
Of course there are areas where the EU has wide powers, but they tend not to be areas which citizens see as affecting their daily lives very much.
The point, then, is that citizens don’t really see the need to engage with the EU or its institutions, or to know who their MEP is, or whatever; it’s more important to them to engage with national institutions. And, as long as the EU is a relatively loose federation, this will always be so. Citizens don’t want to see power pass to the EU institutions because they don’t feel close to them. But they don’t feel close to the institutions because they have relatively little power to affect them.
There is a democratic deficit in the EU institutions, but to the extent that this is attributable to a lack of engagement on the part of citizens, that engagement will follow as the institutions become more influential. There may be other reasons for opposing the transfer of powers from the member states to the EU, but I think that lack of engagement by individual citizens is not one of them.
I think the UK has a particular problem it its press. You charitably describe the kind of headlines that often appear in the tabloids as “misleading”, but many of them are downright lies. I’m not given to conspiracy theories, but I do sometimes wonder whether some powerful media ownership interests have a vested interest which would be challenged by closer European union. Whatever the reason, as long as the European institutions are wilfully misrepresented to British readers it will be difficult for any feeling of engagement to grow.
Let’s get this one out of the way first. I see your points regarding the feelings this might engender, but no matter how much we sugar coat it; it is our government or to be specific a part of it. The fact that people do not feel so is a problem in my view. Not because I want to force a Eurocentric view, but because we supposedly elect them directly or indirectly and yield power over our lives to them and as such we need to be able to trust them. I can see why this is a core part of the confidence crisis.
Now that you formulate yourself somewhat more I see that we don’t disagree as vehemently as it first appeared. I shall strive to hold as balanced a level as you commendably have thus far in this thread.
You see I think it is and always was.
Winnie had been sucking on that caramel for a while by then and the debate was already under way. As he delivers this speech he sets of the true motions towards the creation of the European Council with goal to create the EU. It is still a matter of debate whether the old chap intended Britain to be rather part of the ‘United States of Europe’ or only stay in the Commonwealth and support the EU. That’s immaterial though since times change especially after Winnie, against his will dismantled the British Empire. It is not only immaterial but irrelevant ever since the Brits joined the Union by referendum. In any case, Churchill was also instrumental at driving on the European Congress at Hague in 1948, where he and others spoke openly about a federal Europe. Read for instance the Political Declaration they adopt:
Granted that they speak about a United or Federated Europe. As far as I can discern while reading the texts and speeches from The Hague 48 and surrounding events this was to be understood as interchangeable concepts of similar value.
Enrique Baròn Crespo, Previous President of the European Movement confirms that the goal was federalism from day one. As he says in his preface to the collection of documents on the site I linked to above:
So now we stand some 50 years down the road and there is groaning about whether or not this was a good idea?!? A little late don’t you think? I’d say that this does indeed constitute a failure. Not a failure by the politicians, but a failure by us as peoples to stand up to the decisions we have made as a collective in the past. Or are you going to tell me that representative democracy is useless? Or didn’t we understand? Maybe we were we duped? Not possible, these documents and debates were open to the public all the time and carried out by our democratic governments with full disclosure. To boot the politicians in question made political points as parts of public address out of this agenda.
Nation building is a long process and a process that will encounter setbacks on the way. It does require the support of the citizenry first and foremost. And our commitment to stand by decisions made in due democratic process, whether we like them or not is a cornerstone of democracy. That doesn’t mean we have to shut up and swallow, but it demands informed debate with alternative routes presented. I hear; ‘It was never meant to be a federation, so bloody hands of our sovereignty!’ but when I look at what we decided I see that this is a non-argument since it is a fallacy. So what’s the solution? Do we rip up the decision or do we need to go about it in a better way?
BTW in perspective of Britain’s early and subsequent role in the creation of the Union as well as Sweden’s it is understandable that both citizenry are more reluctant, being more recent participants. But hey, you joined the game now play by the rules and those remain the same since 1948.
sirjamesp posited that I might be prone to getting teary eyed at the EU flag and hymn… not so actually. I’m rather cold to the whole idea of nationalism both emotionally and ideologically. I’d rather say that it’s folk that get teary eyed and warm all over at the waving of The Union Jack and the tunes of God Save the Queen that seem to describe a large portion of the opposition. I believe in the EU, not because of nostalgia, but for the same reasons that Winston did; peace, prosperity and freedom in Europe.
Sparc, I think you have started this debate from incorrect premises. The poll linked in your OP apparently did not ask the question “do you want (yourself/your country) to be part of the EU?” Instead the questions were about support for an EU constitution, the Euro, and (as close as it got), confidence in the EU.
None of those things is the same as the EU. For example, I, as an American, may not have “confidence” in the current administration, or even the institutions of government, but I may very well still want to be part of the United States.
Conversely, a German might think, “I despise the EU, but if we have to have it, it should have a constitution,” or “I wish we weren’t in the EU, but I have to admit that the current folks in charge seem pretty competent, so they have my confidence,” or some such.
Are there any polls out there asking and answering the actual question you posed in the OP?
I believe that while official UK Government policy on the adoption of the Euro is claimed to be subject to five economic tests followed by a national referendum, most observers accept that to be pure spin.
The true position is thought to be that the (so-called) economic tests can be met without difficulty. The issue then becomes, for a Government wishing to join Euroland (as this one is), how to win the referendum ?
As I understand it, there is a tight consensus within the upper echelons of Blair’s Government that time itself will secure a ‘yes’ vote, but that it’s difficult to predict how soon daylight will be seen between the two sides of the debate (in the opinion polls and regular private party polls). When they can discern a clear advantage, it will be all hands to the referendum pump.
The Government is relying on two main developments:
The continued growth in stature of the Euro around the world, particularly in the money markets – stability and positive sentiment being vital. If it can be seen as a strong currency, the ‘anti’ economic arguments begin to evaporate.
Overcoming the emotional/patriotic argument by ongoing exposure. For example, this year at least 20% of the population will be using Euro’s on holiday. That is seen as a very significant engine in undermining the (apparent) emotion bond.
I believe there are still economic arguments against the adoption - based on the UK being on a different economic cycle to that of mainland Europe - but even these are thought to have diminished as the UK has avoided the worst of the most recent slowdown in both Europe and the US.
Sua, the poll that BBC covers in the OP link actually polled the figures you ask for. The support for membership end of last year was 54% across the Union up from 48% in 2000. I do not have specific figures per nation at this moment.
And in response to tsarina’s question regarding the Euro a quick search at Euro Observer resulted in that I must retract my previous statement that people are pretty acceptant of the new currency. In March only 38% of the German population thought that it was good idea to leave the D-Mark. The perceived setbacks I mentioned have impacted public opinion harder than I feared. The lowest support was not too astonishingly found in low education and income brackets. In Sweden the support to adopt the Euro fell from 53% to 48% in April. Some of this disenchantment could be attributable to the recession which was only ‘declared to be over’ in Germany this past week.
I can’t speak for the rest of Europe, but the British public certainly were mislead when being lead into what was then the trading partnership of the EEC.
Prime Minister Edward Heath, on being pressed, said:
(House of Commons, 25th Feb 1970)
It is all very well to argue that the facts were there if the public thought to look through historical documents, but they were assured by their government that they were voting to join a trading partnership, not a federal Europe. If people cannot trust their own government on such important matters, who can they trust? To expect the public to pore over copies of the Treaty of Rome is ridiculous.
However, that is a side issue. We are now where we are; if a nation wanted to leave, it is easily done.
Ah, but this is the problem. You believe in the EU as it is a route to peace and prosperity - but these are not reasons to build a country.
The peace route is nice, but kind of null. I’d like to think that Europe is grown up enough now to stop in-fighting - but even if it isn’t, trying to force a common nationhood from above won’t stop anything. Look at Yugoslavia to see how you cannot force peace on a group of nations. Peace is grand, but I am not convinced that the EU is the best way to achieve this.
As for prosperity, how will a federal Europe cause greater prosperity than the simple souped-up trading partnership we have now? Norway and Switzerland seem to do quite well outside of the EU by simply setting up trading agreements.
In fact, it could be argued that the federalisation is hurting prosperity. The Euro has collapsed in value, unemployment has soared in the Euro-zone, economies are stagnating in some parts (Germany, France) whilst it is overheating in others (Ireland).
Quite simply put, the promised prosperity that monetary integration would bring has not materilaised. Remember how creating a single currency was meant to protect Europe from the vagaries of the world economy? In particular, it was claimed that it would make Europe immune to problems in the US. Well, it hasn’t; the European economies dived with the US, despite the Euro being a reality for several years now (in exchange rate terms) and ERM pre-dating even that.
Remember how it was meant to safeguard jobs? Take a look at Germany!
It seems strange that Britain was warned about dire consequences if it didn’t sign up for the Euro, and yet it is now doing extremely well - certainly far better than any country in the Euro-zone. Obviously there are other factors besides the Euro here, but to the average person, this is not a good advert for further integration.
So, to Joe Public, integration is not helping prosperity. This must surely be one reason for anitpathy towards the idea of a federal Europe.
And then we have the loss of sovereignty that integration entails. This might sound jingoistic and backward-looking, but it is a fact that people are, say, German first and European second. If an integrated Europe is seen to have harmed the national interest, then people will not support it. (Only seen to have harmed, mind you - it doesn’t matter what the reality is, of course.)
The German Chancellor was on television here last year to comment on the way unemployment has rocketed since he came to power, despite him promising to reduce it. He apologised (surely a first for any politician :)), but explained how it was now out of his hands. The dip in the economy had hit Germany hard, and there were no longer any levers left to pull: he couldn’t alter interest rates to try and stimulate the economy, as this was now set in Brussels by the ECB; he couldn’t spend more public money to kick-start things, as that would breach the stability pact.
So, to people listening to these words, the problems with our economy here is exacerbated by the fact that Germany has signed up to the Euro. Once again, the results of integration do not seem great to the man-on-the-street.
As a final nail in the coffin of federal popularity, we have the fact that the decision making in Brussels is too remote, and virtually unaccountable.
First off, it seems that very few people actually know who their MEPs are. Why is this? For sure, it’s easily within our grasp to find out and exercise our right to vote, but this cannot be blamed on the people. Why are people not bothered about who their MEPs are? I suggest that it is because they are seen as irrelevant both to everyday life, and to the main decisions coming out of Brussels.
Real power seems to reside with the Commissioners - who are unelected. They may be appointed by elected politicians in the various countries that make up the EU, but that does not give them democratic legitimacy: we have no say in who these Commissioners are, or what their policies are.
The answer is “none that I am aware of”. The Commissioners are issuing directives that affect us all, and yet have no strong democratic mandate. Let’s look at some of the people we have… We’ve got Chris Patten - he’s there because he had to leave Hong Kong (and he was only there 'cos he was voted out of Parliament back in the UK), and so had nothing to do. What about Neil Kinnock? He’s there because he had to resign as leader of the UK Labour Party. What right do these people have to affect me? Their own electorate have already rejected them! In fact, even our MEPs rejected them, and forced them to resign following that fraud scandal a while back - and yet they still hold their jobs and affect us all!
And then of course we have the European Central Bank, which controls interest rates for those countries who have joined the Euro. This lot are appointed by the EU, so we have some measure of democracy here - but they have soon demonstrated their lack of accountability. Wim Duisenberg was meant to have handed over the top job to a French guy by now, but didn’t. It caused all sorts of arguments, but no-one seems to be able to shift the man. And to make things even more dodgy - they get to vote in secret, and will not issue minutes from their meetings. So much for accountability.
Some of these points are not big on their own, but they add up to an institution that does not do “open and honest” very well. And this is the institution that wants us to trust it with more powers?
So, to pick the important points out of the ramble above. To Joe Public:
Integration does not seem to deliver the benifits it promises.
Integration seems to hurt national interests.
The EU is not accountable, representative or properly democratic.
Factor in the corruption, and is it any wonder that the people of Europe do not seem to embrace the EU?
[private rant]
And now for what really annoys me about the whole thi
