No Cameras: politics, international humanitarian law, military theory and ferrets

[Previous entry: "No True Journalist"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Agonism and antagonism"]

08 June 2003: "Supranational bodies 102"

Much as I love Jackie D, I have to say that being an American living in the UK does not provide one with the best perspective for examining the European Union in the an objective and informed fashion. A case in point is this entry, which cites an article in the Telegraph by Daniel Hannan, a Tory MEP (Member of the European Parliament). Strangely, the article is classed as "news," with the author desribed as "reporting," despite the fact that it's rather obviously an opinion piece.

Or perhaps it's not all that strange; the British media, or at least those British media which focus primarily on a UK audience, can be counted on to do two things, regardless of their (domestic) political orientation: they will never pass up an opportunity to take a swipe at the Americans, nor will they pass up an opportunity to take a swipe at mainland Europe. In the latter case, it's frequently dressed up as being directed against the "faceless bureaucrats in Brussels," who facelessness—for reasons which are never delved into—is so much worse than the facelessness of bureacrats in Whitehall, but there is a universal undertone of xenophobia, in which Britain is cast as the final bulwark of democracy in the face of an ever-encroaching federalist Europe. This is rather rich, coming from inhabitants of a country which has "subjects" rather than citizens, does not have a written constitution, and gave the English language the word "quango."

The term "Eurosceptic" is, as applied to many—perhaps most—British commentators, inaccurate; a sceptic (or "skeptic," to use the American spelling) is one who expresses doubt and suspends judgement until compelling evidence is provided to support the claim in question. British soi-disant "Eurosceptics," however, merely seem to revel in closed-mindedness; anything which is prefixed with "Euro-" is treated as being ipso facto a Bad Thing. "Europhobe" would be a more honest term.

"Euroscepticism" is marked by the staggering amount of sheer ignorance that goes into it; this is true of "Eurosceptics" in any country, but it is particularly evident in Britain. (That is to say, as far as actual EU member states are concerned; compared to the ignorance among American commentators, it is positively mild.) Various opinion polls suggest that a mere 10% of British people find the notion that EU law "shall have primacy over the law of the member states" (Article 10) acceptable. The remaining 90% are evidently blissfully unaware that the primacy of EEC/EU law has been in place since the acceptance of the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and that Britain has therefore in effect been subject to this provision (albeit under slightly different wording) since it joined the then-EEC in 1973. Indeed, not having this provision would defeat the whole purpose of the EU. The analogy has been drawn with a consumer who has eaten a particular brand of sausage for thirty years without complaint, but then, upon reading the list of ingredients, expresses disgust and horror. Some 75% of the draft constitution consists of provisions which have been more or less copied from already existing treaties to which every member state, including the United Kingdom, has been party for some time.

British "Euroscepticism" in many ways resembles the American "US out of the UN" attitude. Ignorance of goals and structures of the organisations plays a large part, but coupled to this is what can only be described a siege mentality; the feeling that at worst the sole intention of all or most of the other member states is to screw over, respectively, Britain or America, or at best that the populations of the other member states are a bunch of sheep who would be languishing under the heel of Brussels or the New World Order, were it not for the spirited rearguard defence conducted by the holdout nation. My personal theory is that the major factor in this perception is that most British and Americans only speak English, or at least do not master other languages to the degree required to understand what op-ed columns are saying in other member states, and understand that those other member states have their own reservations vis-à-vis certain aspects of the organisation.

The functioning of organisations like the EU and the UN bears a resemblance to film editing, in the sense that you tend not to notice it until it's done badly. Sure, we all scoff at ridiculous EU rulings, like the coining of the term "cocoa fantasy" to indicate chocolate which does not contain sufficient cocoa solids to officially be called "chocolate" (e.g. KinderBueno), or how much curvature a banana is allowed to have, or that white, crumbly cheese in brine will soon only be allowed to be called "feta" if it's actually made in Greece. But in doing so, it is all to easy to lose sight of the fact that the whole body of standards prevents member states from blocking imports from other countries on spurious claims that the imports "do not meet requirements of national law." We need only look at the protectionist measures implemented by Japan at various points in history—drilling holes in American baseball bats "to make certain they were 100% wood" or refusing to allow the import of French-made skis on the grounds that "Japanese snow is different from European snow" (the French threatened to retaliate by banning Japanese tyres on the grounds that "French asphalt was different")—to see the advantage of having a clear codification of required product standards.

The goal of any supranational organisation is that it is supposed to make things better, on balance, for all its member states. This requires compromise, and all too frequently, critics focus on the compromises their country is required to make, while conveniently ignoring both the compromises other member states are also required to make, as well as the benefits which are, in the longer term, derived from these compromises. The simple rejoinder to "Eurosceptics" is "If the EU is supposedly so awful, why are so many countries scrambling to join?" About the only country in Europe not eager to join the EU is Norway, a country happens to be the third largest exporter of oil in the world; the latter fact should tell you why Norway feels it doesn't need the EU.

With this, I return at last to Hannan's column.

What would it take to convince you that the EU is anti-democratic?

(As I remarked before, the Telegraph classes this piece as "news," stating that Daniel Hannan "reports." However, this opening sentence clearly signals the author's primary intent, which is not to report objectively on the facts, but to persuade me that his viewpoint is correct; this makes it an opinion piece.)
"Anti-democratic," no less? Gosh. Not just "flawed" or "open to improvement," or even "undemocratic," but actively "anti-democratic."

It has brushed aside "no" votes in Denmark and Ireland.

Call me old-fashioned, but I always understood that democracy involved a certain element of majority rule; two votes out of fifteen is hardly a majority.

It has refused to accept the result of an Austrian general election.

And after a few months, the member governments decided (correctly) that it had been a bad idea, and dropped the issue. Better late than never. It doesn't change the fact that the Austrians, who have been in denial about their support for the Nazis since 1945, and have ever since claimed to be "victims" of Nazism while simultaneously exuding pride about their soldiers' achievements in that war while serving in the Wehrmacht, voted in a racist. This is not the sort of thing that goes down well in those parts of Europe which the Nazis occupied (as opposed to be welcomed in). Curiously, many critics of continental Europe cite both the fact that these parties exist and the fact that efforts are made to curb them as proof of anti-democratic tendencies in mainland Europe; I'd say you can have it one way or the other.

Now it is proposing legislation which could bar Eurosceptic parties from the European Parliament.

This sentence, and the paragraphs that follow it, are a staggering distortion of the purpose and envisioned operation of the proposed (not accepted) legislation regarding the Statute of European political parties. The actual proposed legislation reads as follows:

Article 4 Statute of European political parties
1. Any European political party or union of such parties may register a statute of a European political party subject to the following conditions:
a) it must be established in the European Union;
b) it must have established itself as a political group in the house of European citizens, or intend to establish one to participate in an existing group;
c) its programme and its activities must respect the principles of democracy and the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.

2. Financing may be charged to the general budget of the European Communities for European political parties that have registered a statute.

(source: pp.11-12 "The reform of European institutions of government", Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale)
Item 2. is actually the raison d'être of the proposal. The idea has been floated that pan-European parties should be funded by the EU itself, so as to prevent them from being reliant on contributions from industry, trade unions, et al. Whether this would actually work is open to discussion, but the idea itself is hardly anti-democratic; it is intended to promote democracy by increasing transparency. However, to qualify for such funding, a party has to meet certain criteria; the motivation for this is that taxpayers are reluctant to see their taxes spent on funding any and all comers, especially those of an extremist bent.

Hannan very studiously avoids specifying what he means by "recognition." Cynical chap that I am, I have my suspicions why he fails to do so. Hannan goes a fair way to create the impression that any party not meeting the criteria of Article 4 would be denied entry to the European Parliament; this is bogus. The party in question is not barred from being elected, but it will be denied funding. If this seems "anti-democratic," consider this: United States senators take an Oath or Affirmation of Office, swearing (or affirming) to support and defend the Constitution. In fact, most parliamentarians are required to something along these lines. Nobody finds this strange; it's accepted in most democracies that if you seek public office, you play by the established rules. Of course, you can seek to change the rules by proposing constitutional amendments, but even the amendments have to be realised as set forth in the relevant constitution. (All this, of course, does not apply to the UK, which doesn't have a written constitution.) So it won't be "bye-bye" to the UK Independence Party or the Tories, as Hannan suggests; they'll just have to get along without taking EU taxpayers' money. You'd think they'd be only too happy not to.

Actually, that last point doesn't seem to be the case. Hannan is an MEP; evidently, he's quite content to take the EU's filthy lucre, as is every other "Eurosceptic" MEP, including the three MEPs representing the UKIP. The UKIP's only stated objective is to get the UK to withdraw from the EU, but if that goal is going to be achieved, it would have to happen in Westminster, not in Brussels or Strasbourg; the decision to renounce a treaty needs to be made in the national parliament. So why does the UKIP even have MEPs? Oh, right, they're going to report back how corrupt Brussels really is. Well, fuck that excuse; there's no point "fighting from within the belly of the beast" if you don't intend to reform the beast, but only want to get as far away from the beast as you can. From where I'm standing, it looks suspiciously like the UKIP's MEPs have their snouts in the very (alleged) trough they ostensibly condemn. As, I might add, does Daniel Hannan.

As good netheads, I'm sure you're familiar with "Godwin's Law" and its corollaries. Godwin's Law itself reads:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

As the Jargon Dictionary puts it:

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

The hacks at the Daily Mail are evidently not familiar with Godwin's Law, spouting lines like "What Hitler failed to do, Europe is now proposing to bring about by edict." Hannan, and many others who are apparently familiar with Godwin's Law simply bring up Stalin and the Soviet Union instead. Were an alternate version of Godwin's Law, with Stalin replacing Hitler and the CPSU replacing the NSDAP, ever to gain acceptance, Hannan cum suis would undubitably replace Stalin with Napoleon, just like they previously replaced Hitler with Stalin. It's a cheap trick in more ways than one.

I can already hear the Europhiles choking on their Sancerre.

Cheap populism; Europhiles must, by definition, be white wine-swilling élitists, who don't drink "people's" drinks, like beer. Hold on, what's this by my keyboard? Could it be... a bottle of lager?
Hannan himself, presumably, doesn't drink Sancerre, because he's probably too busy swilling champagne. It's the best kind, too: the kind that's paid for by somebody else. At least I can take solace, having moved to the US, that he's not drinking it on my taxes.

But it is worth asking why the heirs of the Communist and Agrarian Parties of Eastern Europe have been leading the campaign to join the EU.

This is a marvellous example of putting the cart before the horse. Many of the people active in public life in Eastern Europe are ex-communists, mainly because they're the majority of forty-somethings or older with political savvy and experience. How many of them were committed communists is open to question; Slobodan Milošević ditched communism in favour of Serb nationalism when he saw which way the wind was blowing. Most of them are committed to ideology less than they are to opportunism; joining the EU, they reckon, will increase their voters' standard of living, and that will get them re-elected. Ditto for the Agrarians: they represent farmers, who hope to be the benificiaries of the EU's common agricultural policy, so of course they're in favour of joining the EU.

[The EU] is becoming increasingly intolerant of dissent. If you think I exaggerate, read what the Advocate General said when Bernard Connolly, a Commission official who was sacked after attacking the single currency, claimed that his right to free speech had been violated. Free speech, the judge told him, was not an absolute right. It could not be used to justify certain offences, such as criticism of the EU, or blasphemy.

Connolly was sacked for violating staff regulations. He knew he was breaking those rules by saying what he said. Let me make this comparison: many of you, my readers, will have signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) at some point in your life. You know when you sign it that if you break that agreement, you will have to face up to the consequences; if you wanted to retain your freedom of speech intact, you shouldn't have signed the agreement, and it's too late to whinge about it afterwards. This, in so many words, is what Bernard Connolly did do; he agreed to abide by certain rules, broke them, and paid the price. In this instance, the price was dismissal; if he'd violated the British Official Secrets Act in such a manner, the price would have been dismissal and criminal proceedings.

What of the draft EU constitution, then? Should it be put to a referendum? I really don't see why; it is, after all, a first draft. As I noted before, 75% of the document is copied from treaties nobody's ever had a real problem with, but the remaining 25% is open to some animated discussion. In short, the current document is flawed. There's no point presenting it to the people in its current form; they'll either reject it, thus scuppering the whole idea including any possibility of an improved version, or they'll accept it, which would be even worse. And really, when has the first draft of a constitution ever been presented to the people for ratification? Was the US Constitution, for that matter, ever ratified by referendum? That said, I'm all in favour of referenda on the EU Constitution, but not until it's worth voting on.

In conclusion, if you've gleaned the idea that I think Daniel Hannan is both a hypocrite and a populist demagogue, you're spot on. Supranational organisations have flaws, I won't deny it, but you don't remedy those flaws by rejecting the organisation entirely. And to reject the organisation in your rhetoric while enriching yourself by means of that same organisation in practice, well, there's only one word for that.

Update: regarding Hannan's complaints about "supreme power" being wielded by the Commission rather than parliament, I would point to some observations made by Henry Farrell of Gallowglass; Farrell notes that the draft constitution would make it significantly more difficult for the Commission and Council to conduct the method of "back room connivance" decision making that has, rightly, been one of the principal points of ciriticism of the EU. The constitution would also increase the power of the parliament. Note that Hannan avoids making any mention of this.

Navigation:
home
archives
backgrounder
e-mail

Blogs:

au currant
Black Decaf
The Illiterati
Cointelpro Tool
Norman Geras
A Fistful of Euros
Harry's Place
Plastic Gangster
Blogfonte
Tim Newman
â‚¬urosavant
Crooked Timber
Gallowglass
Mr. McGillicuddy
eameljenet
Civax
101-280
Colby Cosh
Peaktalk
Mick Hartley
Oliver Kamm

Miscellanea:

Care to contribute
to the coffee fund?

ï¿½ 2003-2004 Jurjen Smies