It’s only through studying the European Union that the
absurdity of many eurosceptics’ positions has become apparent to me. An
instinctive pro-European, I’ve never seen much allure in the idea that the more
independence our arbitrarily-defined nation state possesses the better. More
can be achieved as part of a whole, resources can be pooled, neighbouring
countries can stop pointing guns at each other, and point them at some other
common enemy, perhaps a country where the people have a different skin colour
or religion. However, recently my concerns have become more codified.
My account of polling day for the local elections last year,
on this very blog, included a description of a three hour conversation I held
with a man running to be a councillor for UKIP. Quite why a party concerned
primarily with the UK’s position within the EU contests local elections is
another issue, but part way through the conversation he described the beauty of
capitalism in that it is a self-adjusting and extremely complex and intricate
system of resource allocation. It struck me odd then, as now, that someone
would support the free movement of resources in almost every area, and demand
the government simply allow capitalism to mould society as demand dictates, yet
hold such opposition to the free movement of labour in the form of relaxed
borders and immigration. Presumably in a capitalist world, the free movement of
labour is crucial if it is to be optimally efficient.
This being said, I take more issue with the criticisms of the
EU itself. It’s absolutely true that the European Union has a democratic
deficit. There is only one directly elected body, the European Parliament,
which has little power, comparable in terms of its scrutinising and
legislation-delaying role to the British House of Lords, a fact which is often
trumpeted by eurosceptics explain why the EU is unaccountable. But what these
critics fail to acknowledge is the correlation between the amount of power an
organisation has and the amount of democratic legitimacy it requires. No one
would seriously suggest, I assume, that every time an international treaty is
formed, it should require an elected international assembly between the
relevant countries, and it’s important to remember that this is how the EU was
formed and developed: by individual treaties. It’s wrong to view it as a static
organisation that was designed with the powers it currently has, as well as the
lack of democratic accountability it currently has. The EU is a continuing
project and has been changing and developing for the last fifty years. The
democratic deficit is something that, if eurosceptics would shut up and let the
EU carry on changing rather than blocking every new treaty or constitution,
will be addressed in time. It’s not sensible to argue for more democracy in the
EU without also believing it should have sufficient power to warrant elections
and democratic accountability. The way the EU has developed has led to the
current state of a slightly higher power to accountability ratio than would be
ideal, but this should change in time.
Both the Lisbon Treaty and the failed constitution of 2004
(both opposed by eurosceptics) wanted more powers to the European Parliament,
to match the EU’s increasing legislative role. It is, of course, true that the
EU is getting more say over more aspects of our lives, and as a result should
be accountable to the European people, so why eurosceptics would oppose these
moves is uncertain.
And at the other end of the spectrum, eurosceptics believe
countries are losing their independence, which would surely be more so if there
was a stronger supranationalist parliament, rather than the current reliance on
intergovernmental institutions. The areas of the EU in which countries retain
most of their independence are the Council of Ministers and the European
Council, which are the negotiating forums of representatives of member
governments who act in the interests of their people. On major treaties and
so-called “higher” policy areas such as defence and foreign policy, member
states exercise a veto, so no country is expected to sign up to things it
disagrees with. For people who object to the removal of power from nation
states, these appear to be pretty good measure to ensure sovereignty is
retained. It’s impossible to have an EU that’s both perfectly democratic, and
gives paramount importance to national governments.
So what frustrates me most about the eurosceptics is wanting
to attack, on the one hand, the lack of independence of member states, and when
the intergovernmental negotiating forums are mentioned as an answer to this,
they change their focus to democratic accountability, which they opposed the
improvement of in the form of opposition to any new treaty that comes from
Brussels, and fail to realise that there’s no use in having a democratically
elected parliament if it has no powers.
This circular logic is not grounded in reason, but in a deep
protectionism and a general dislike for the idea of their country being a part
of a whole rather than an end in itself. It’s a position born out of
nationalism, and nationalism alone.
