Eurocrash: the eleven go for political union
Wednesday 19 September 2012
 And now, they – eleven EU foreign ministers including the German – are at it again, this time with another "joint paper" calling for states to hand over more powers to Brussels in order to resolve the eurocrisis. Their proposals include EU rights to intervene on national budgets, treaty reforms without unanimity and majority decision-making in foreign policy. However, the ministers stress that suggestions are "personal opinions" that do not necessarily reflect the views of their governments. Westerwelle, speaking for the group, said in Berlin: "At the end of the path that we are now taking now can only be political union". He added: "this would complete our economic and monetary union. At the same time it would realise a common foreign and security policy in the fullest sense". This political union, Westerwelle continued, must be based on a foundation of European power. He wants "a parliament which adopts European laws and a commission that does the work of a European government". The president, he says, should be directly elected, and with a council, as a second Chamber to represent "the concerns of the member states". Including Westerwelle, we have the foreign ministers of Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Not all members of the group agreed with the idea of a directly elected president, however, but they all called for short-term measures to strengthen the single currency. The majority of these measures, it is felt, would be possible without changes to the EU treaties, but they are not enough. Also needed is "effective surveillance powers with specific competencies for the European institutions to monitor and implement fiscal measures in the member states". This means that the EU commission must be able to veto national budgets. Westerwelle says that no member state should be allowed to jeopardise the safety of monetary union. The community is "entitled to act and should have the powers to do so". Some members go as far of requiring the pooling of sovereign debt. These may have been France and Italy. Germany and the Netherlands were opposed. As to the ESM, this to be expanded into a permanent crisis fund known as the "European Monetary Fund", taking over responsibilities from the IMF. The EU parliament would also be involved in any further euro rescue measures taken at EU level. Other proposals include splitting the now very large commission in senior and junior commissioners. The "majority" of the eleven ministers agreed that only MEPs from the eurozone, and those involved in the Fiscal Pact, would participate in decisions affecting the euro. That would exclude UK and Czech MEPs. To circumvent vetoes by the United Kingdom or other countries such as Ireland, "most" ministers believe that treaty changes should be possible with a "super-qualified" majority, with the treaty provisions binding only on the ratifying states. Taking in the foreign and security policy, minister want a "fundamental review" of the newly created European External Action Service. They want to see changes the neighbourhood policy, over which the commission still has some control. They want majority voting where there is joint representation in international organisations, "where possible". Also, the ministers want a European defence policy. For "some" ministers this could mean a European army. And all ministers want a European Border Guard to secure the external borders of the Schengen area. National visas should be replaced with European visas. This is all serious stuff, and the eleven are not messing. Westerwelle and his fellow ministers are to submit formal proposals in the next few days to European Council president, Van Rompuy, and Barroso. The EU parliament was informed last week. They ministers regard their paper as a contribution to a wider institutional reform paper being developed by Van Rompuy and his "quartet" in Brussels. Theirs is a shopping list from a few individuals. By the end of the year, however, they expect the next moves towards the objective to be made. And once the countdown starts, there will be no stopping it. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/09/2012 |
EU referendum: the tragedy of euroscepticism
Tuesday 18 September 2012
 In fact, by seeking election at the 2014 EU parliament elections, she and her supporters are not a political movement, per se. A movement, as defined, does not seek election to public office. Instead, "it aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement". Thus, while the Harrogate Agenda is a movement, Sinclaire's "We Demand A Referendum Party" is a classic political party, and one built on an incredibly narrow single issue. Despite that, as it is ostensibly a well-motivated campaign seeking our extraction from the EU, we might perhaps be expected to wish it well. But we are actually more inclined to deplore yet another example of the absolute determination to fail that plagues euroscepticism. In this particular instance, we are as sure as we can be that there will be no EU referendum this side of the general election, which is to be held in 2015. Our best analysis suggests that the earliest possible date would be 2016, but more likely it will be later. Sinclaire's party has no chance whatsoever of getting a referendum in 2014 However – with a new EU treaty in the offing – one can be reasonably confident that we will get an EU referendum, although its precise nature is as yet uncertain. In that sense, the general battle is already won. Sinclaire is kicking at a closed door, when the one next to it is wide open. What she then ignores is that, should it come to a referendum, the eurosceptic "community" is particularly ill-equipped and organised to fight it - unlike the proliferation of europhile organisations, including Open Europe. And the even greater handicap is the lack of any coherent alternative to the EU, or a credible exit plan - neither of which Ms Sinclaire has on offer. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the launch of her "party" has engendered a goodly volume of e-mail traffic, some of which conveys the sentiment that her effort is a complete waste of time. And with that, it is hard to disagree. On the one hand, she is setting herself an objective than cannot be achieved while, on the other, she is not doing that which must be done in order for a referendum to succeed. In all probability though, her efforts will come to nothing. Setting up a political party is a notoriously ineffective mechanism for achieving political change, which is why we believe that the political movement route is a better option. That another eurosceptic grouping has chosen the former is all part of the tragedy of euroscepticism, doomed to expending energy and resource on the ineffective. And why such groupings are so attracted to failure is one of those mysteries we will never solve. That is the greater tragedy of euroscepticism. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/09/2012 |
Posts
