The latest European Union summit in Barcelona was an improvement on last year’s bad-tempered event in Stockholm when little was agreed at the end of the Swedish EU presidency. However, though it appeared that accord was reached on a range of issues such as energy and labor-market liberalization, this was once again an exercise in political trimming and window dressing. A British attempt to drum up support for a US attack on Iraq was seen off by the French and Germans, who both argued that Washington should only be acting within a UN mandate. However, the main issue, that of pushing through measures to allow it to become a dynamic liberalized economy with 20 million new jobs, rivaling the United States eight years from now, was once again fudged.
This demonstrates a core contradiction within Europe. It is still driven by the political vision of a unified, centralized state that will keep its component members from future military conflict. A few summits such as Maastricht, which gave birth to the single European currency, have been epoch-making. However, time and again, when summitry addresses the practicalities of fostering economic growth, individual national interests and prejudices have stymied change.
The majority of Europe is used to a highly interventionist welfare-oriented model. High pensions, generous welfare and health provision mean high taxes to pay for them. The US of course, also has a welfare safety net, but unlike in Europe, it is strung out a good deal lower down the social ladder.
The dominant presence of the state in Europe also means that the continent’s politicians have to be very sensitive about any changes they make to the economic status quo. Voters are easily upset. It was notable that one reason that the Barcelona summit pulled its punches on labor-market reform and also delayed liberalization of the energy sector was that the French are coming up for elections. Germany too is approaching the hustings and the unfortunate Portuguese government delegation returned to Lisbon at the end of the summit, to discover that they had been voted out of power in Sunday’s elections.
There are currently 18 EU members, each of which faces regular elections. Given that EU summits occur every six months, the chances are that there will nearly always be at least one delegation that is looking over its shoulder, distinctly worried as to how their performance will be playing to the electors back home. As more members are admitted to the EU, this problem will be exacerbated.
Would the answer be for the member states to synchronize their elections, so that all governments go to the voters at the same time? Such coordinated elections across the Union could also coincide with voting for members of the European Parliament. Whatever point of view won the day in any country would have the validity of being tested in a single continent-wide debate. Governments would then meet with clear mandates to hasten or slow the implementation of the ideals that underpin the European vision. Summits, as a result, would cease to be the present game of Grandmother’s Footsteps, creeping up on voters, that they are today and could become far more businesslike and decisive.
