The European Union’s expansion eastward next year to take in another ten states, bringing the total to 25, is ample evidence that Europe is growing. But that is physical growth. The new draft EU constitution published yesterday points to a different sort of growth — political growth. Plans to have a powerful president, a foreign minister, a single foreign policy and to give the EU a “legal personality” of its own with a legally-binding charter of rights covering issues such as labor and social policies, will radically alter political and social life in every member state. Whatever the apologists may pretend — and they are pretending quite a lot in order to keep the Euroskeptics at bay — these add up to a major leap forward toward a single European state.
Obviously, if the Europeans want a super state, that is their business — although there is much about this idea that could be very welcome in a world where the US has become the sole superpower. We tend to forget that the EU is the world’s largest provider of aid, is the world’s most powerful economic bloc and potentially its most powerful military one as well. Even now, when it does agree on particular issues, the EU often sees things differently from others, including the US. Therein lies the attraction. The new Europe envisaged by these constitutional proposals as a consciously single political entity rather than an assembly of states, would provide the balance to US power on the international stage that is currently lacking. That has to be for the good.
However, if such a constitutional transformation is to occur, the rest of the world has the right to insist on certain changes. It would be wholly unacceptable for the EU to have a foreign minister and a single foreign policy and yet have two vetoes and five votes on the UN Security Council. The idea is outrageous. The present position in which it has more votes on the Security Council than any other continent — the Americas, Asia and Africa have just three each — is already cause for concern. But that would be as nothing compared to the international uproar at a single Europe commanding a third of the Security Council. There would have to be changes there and in all other international bodies where more than one EU state is involved, the G8 meetings being another obvious case. But before any of this happens, there is going to be a lot of metaphorical blood spilt within Europe. These plans are going to be fought all the way between the Europhiles and the Euroskeptics, and within every single member state. Even the Europhiles will be divided. There are plenty who want a more open Europe, but not necessarily a more centralized Europe, which is at the heart of this proposal. In any case, recent events underline the near impossibility of devising and enforcing a single foreign policy. The war in Iraq split Europe in half. No one could say which way a vote would have gone had members voted on the matter, but there is no way that France and Germany would have accepted a pro-war result or the UK an anti one.
The Iraqi war shows that the EU simply is not ready for a united foreign policy. If the proposals go through as presently envisaged, Europe could end up with a foreign minister busily pursuing one policy while one or more member states pursue another. That would be a shambles. The only way a single foreign policy could work is if present national governments were replaced by a single European government — but that is not what is being proposed.
