Milburn on the EU

Also in Todays Times Alan Milburn gets to grips with the direction the EU is taking. I say 'gets to grips with' in the loosest sense those words can have... like most politicians, his idea of really getting to grips with something involves writing up some new legislation. Its a much better written piece than the barely literate noodlings of James Purnell and Jim Murphy I blogged about last month. At least Mr Milburn has recognisably tried to contend with the 'challenges' presented by EU membership. And I agree with his analysis of the main problem- the huge and growing distance between the citizenry of the member countries and the tiny groups of people among whom EU offices are allocated.

But there is little in this piece about why the estrangement exists, and genuinely transformative ideas about how to change it. Europes peoples have had their identities as nations and peoples for millenia in many cases. Trying to change that into some sort of generic 'Europeanness' is therefore a massive challenge. Even in the US, where being an American is seen by virtually everyone as a genuine and valid identity, there are still many regional differences. I know no-one who sees themselves as European first and English second. Perhaps these people exist, but they are invisible and nobody in politics bothers trying to appeal to them. And to change this situation, Mr Milburn suggests "...better linking the results of consultation to decision-making" and "...introducing a citizen's right to initiate new laws." You can understand why those two things would make a politician like the EU more, but I would wager it will leave the man on the Clapham omnibus unmoved.

Leaving aside the terrible abuse of the legislative process that the latter suggestion has led to in places like California, in the (revised) words of the old ad campaign, 'If a lack of European identity is your problem, THAT is not your solution'. I don't personally believe that the EU lacks democratic processes and theoretical democratic legitimacy. I believe it does lack democratic processes that people trust, and practical democratic legitimacy. Every now and again, there is an EU vote in my constituency. I have never voted in it. None of the candidates has ever contacted me in any way either directly or indirectly. Even if they had, I'm not sure what kind of clout my MEP(s) would have. I have rightly or wrongly got the impression from reading newspaper reports that the EU parliament is a talking shop for socialists, whose most serious work means very very little. I also have the impression that all the really important things that happen in the EU go through the Commission (which may or may not be the Council of Ministers). I do know that there are very few Commissioners (25?). Which means that 25 people have an almost god-like power over 600 million or so.

I also know that the EU has budgets of billions, maybe trillions of Euros. I also know that even as a concerned, highly political and interested EU citizen, I have never seen an easily digested statistical breakdown of who and what that money is spent on. Unlike in the United States, where from the very beginning, the Federal Government was created and limited by the Constitution, the EU seems messy, badly thought-out and very... French. By that, I refer to the chaotic and sub-standard nature of French political settlements since 1789. I think they are on their sixth Republic and from my readings of reports about their politics, this one is as clunky and prone to abuse as the previous five. The current situation where we have this proto-United-States type Union but without the simple and brilliantly thought-out rules of a proper constitution just reinforces in my mind what I think is the main structural flaw of the EU: that it is being created from many many old pieces all with a highly particular character.

The recently rejected EU constitution (I have read a precis of it) is a jumble of the loftily vacuous with the bizarrely specific, and has all the worst hallmarks of a committee-written document. Unlike the US constitution which has a superbly clear mind about what institutions a nation genuinely needs, and what roles it must fulfil for the public. The EU constitution blathers on about micro-institution after micro-institution in a way that just screams 'pandering to interest groups'. The enlightenment scholars who created the US constitution painted in just a few strokes a clear and strong polity. The EU constitution is a great Jackson Pollock of a mess.

I'm happy to keep the EU a free trading area, maybe even with other cross-border agreements for sharing information on criminals and other matters of mutual interest. But the rest of the cargo of unnecessary and self-sustaining institutions can be happily discarded. I would be happy if the EU Parliament never again convened to prattle on about the latest modish socialist crap. And the EU Commission should be shorn of all but the merest bureaucratic power. I'd vote for that!