The European Union edged a little closer to real unification yesterday when a draft treaty emerged from 48 hours of hard bargaining by politicians and officials from the 27 member states. As in the way of negotiations concerning another substantive step toward greater union, every national delegation claims to have won its argument at the conference table. This is always reinforced by the protests of prominent Euro-enthusiasts that the deal has not gone far enough and “an historic opportunity” has been lost. Most of this amounts to the smoke and mirrors of politicians anxious to keep their home electorates happy. With few exceptions, all political parties within EU member states are signed up to the slow reality as well as the principle of ultimate union. They figure a Europe united will be immensely more powerful both economically and politically than the sum of its parts could ever be with increasing globalization.
From our region’s point of view, Saturday’s agreement to elect a European president for two and a half years together with a vice president who will be responsible for foreign affairs is significant. Abandoning the half-yearly presidency that revolves around member countries suggests a continuity that will allow Europe to speak more strongly in world affairs. Even the compromise deal with the typical Euro-speak “High Representative” instead of “Foreign Minister”, may mean that Brussels can be markedly more influential in crucial bodies like the Quartet charged with advancing a just settlement for the Palestinians. With a budget and a proper secretariat, the de facto EU foreign minister will be able to build policy and contacts rather than relying on ad hoc teams often dominated by the country holding the presidency for six months,
The Berlin treaty will be sold to EU electorates as a series of reforms, not the full-blown constitution that both the Dutch and French voters rejected in referenda in 2005. That constitution which required unanimous approval is now legally dead. It was however ratified by 18 other EU states. With the exception of Spain and Luxembourg, this was at parliamentary level only. Many Europeans, who have no inherent objection to the ultimate goals of union, do however resent what they see as the continual Euro-enthusiast pressure, toward a federalist United States of Europe. Some countries like Sweden and the UK would like to see more gradual but stronger-based evolution of EU institutions and centralizing power. They fear that the imposed “revolutionary” model is more fragile and less able to withstand the strains that will test and prove its effectiveness. The 13 Euro-zone states are still grappling the consequences of sharing a single currency underpinned by divergent national economies and fudged rules on debt and deficits, that were supposed to be honored at the currency’s launch in 2002 and were still widely breached by last year’s extended deadline. The world needs a strong and coherent EU. It must however fear that if the pace of union is forced, the great goal will fall apart in dangerous acrimony and instability.
