By Gideon Rachman
Published: June 21 2010 20:30
For the past few months, the words “Europe” and “crisis” have been inseparable companions. First, there was the threat of sovereign debt crises across the European Union. Now there is the spectacle of the most famous footballing nations in Europe floundering at the World Cup: Italy unable to beat New Zealand, England held by Algeria, France humiliated by Mexico.
Beyond its immediate economic and sporting struggles, Europe is suffering from a deeper malaise. The modern EU has its origins in the Treaty of Rome of 1957. That means that the Union is now 53 years old – a classic age for a midlife crisis. And sure enough, the EU betrays every sign of a debilitating loss of a sense of purpose.
The founding fathers of the EU were absolutely certain about their goal: it was peace in Europe. But the last important European politician who genuinely believed that the drive for European unity was a matter of war and peace was probably Helmut Kohl – the German chancellor who oversaw the reunification of his own nation, then pushed for the creation of a single European currency.
Sixty-five years after the war, few European politicians or voters still believe that “ever closer union” in Europe is necessary for the preservation of peace. When the Dutch prime minister tried to make that argument, campaigning in favour of a proposed EU constitution in 2005, he was ridiculed and the vote was lost.
Pro-Europeans have tried out many themes to give the Union a new sense of purpose. If peace is no longer the main objective of the EU, how about prosperity? Many of the Union’s signature projects – the creation of a single market and a single currency – have been sold on the basis that they will make Europe richer. The European left prefers to argue that the EU’s main goal should not be higher economic growth for its own sake – but rather the preservation of a unique European social model that aims to provide all its citizens with the basics of a decent life, from free healthcare to a minimum income.
Others prefer a more outward-looking vision. They argue that the EU is now all about the spread of democratic ideas and clean government across the European continent through the enlargement of the Union. Between 1995 and 2007, the EU went from 12 to 27 members.
Another school looks even further abroad and claims that that Europe should now be about power projection. Taken together, the citizens of the EU account for just 11 per cent of the world’s population; and that is projected to fall to about 6 per cent in 50 years time. The nations of Europe will only be able to defend their interests in the world, so the argument goes, if they speak and act as one.
And then there are those – particularly the British – who say that the EU should forget about grand, abstract visions, and focus instead on the practical benefits that it can bring to ordinary Europeans: passport-free travel, cheaper phone-calls, college scholarships.
One obvious response is that Europe should be about all of the above: peace, prosperity, spreading democracy, protecting the European social model, defending Europe’s interests in the wider world and providing practical benefits.
That sounds fine. But the trouble is that many of these high-sounding goals turn out, on closer inspection, to be more controversial than they sound – or even mutually contradictory. Defenders of the European “social model” were aghast that the enlargement of the EU meant that workers in the richer nations of western Europe were exposed to low-wage competition from the newcomers to the EU. The “Polish plumber” became an improbable bogeyman in France; and British politicians came to recognise that mass immigration from the EU was unpopular with many voters.
In the wake of the financial crisis, completing Europe’s single market is also no longer universally accepted as an unvarnished good. On the contrary, “liberalisation” has become a dirty word for many politicians.
Giving Europe a louder voice on global issues is also far from straightforward. While European elites may talk of the need to project power, voters seem unconvinced. The war in Afghanistan is deeply unpopular and military budgets are often the first to be cut.
Creating practical benefits for ordinary Europeans is all very well. But if “Europe” is ultimately only about creating lower charges for mobile-phone users, why bother?
Now the economic crisis has added a nasty new edge to the EU’s midlife crisis. The Union is like a middle-aged man whose inconclusive reveries about the meaning of life have been interrupted by the unpleasant realisation that he has not saved enough for his retirement – and may have to start eating cat-food on a more regular basis.
The optimists hope that hard times will shock Europe out of its midlife crisis. The EU will find new meaning in adversity. The economic struggle will create new bonds of solidarity and force deeper integration.
So far, however, the omens are not promising. The early stages of the financial crisis have set nations against each other – most obviously in the bitter words exchanged between Greeks and Germans. It is true that some people get through their midlife crises strengthened and emerge with a new sense of purpose and vitality. But others simply get divorced.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario