European elections: let's not forget what Europe has achieved
|
Version 0 of 1. This Thursday's European elections could prove a resounding success for Nigel Farage and for populist anti-EU parties across Europe, wheeling a Trojan horse directly into the heart of Brussels, boosting a rightwing Europe-wide coalition, intent on destroying that first promise of the Treaty of Rome: "To lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe." In Britain, Farage, MEP for the south-east of England, argues that the EU is a failed project, based on a failed currency system that is sucking the life out of many of its members and impinging on the British way of life with its policy of "open door immigration". "By leaving and prospering, we can strike a decisive blow against those who are determined to create a superstate," Farage has argued repeatedly. According to a recent YouGov poll , Ukip could receive an unprecedented 31% of the vote, the first time an outsider party in the UK has a won a national election for 100 years. After recession, stagnation and social unrest, just at the point when the eurozone is showing fragile signs of recovery, the European project has never appeared sicklier, more frail. A consensus exists that the EU is a vastly overblown technocratic monolith that eats cash and benefits few. While the voices of the arch Eurosceptics such as Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front, and the views of anti-federalists, including David Cameron, promising an in-out referendum in 2017, are loudly heard, supporters of the original ideal, to create a major bloc to tackle egregious challenges such as climate change and globalisation, and to encourage "competition to stimulate, co-operation to strengthen and solidarity to unite", have been drowned out. Champions of the European ideal are in desperately short supply. So how has it to come to this? And what is in danger of being lost in the process? The first 50 years of the 20th century for Europe were those of economic blight, war and the loss of generations of young men. In 1951, six countries in Europe, came together to form the European Coal and Steel Community, "a first step in the federation of Europe", soon followed by the European Economic Community, the common market. As sociologist Hannah Arendt pointed out, after two world wars, the endeavour offered "pardon and promise". Jacques Delors said Europe had a choice: "Unify or decline." Over the following decades, as the numbers of countries involved in the EU has increased to the current 28, incorporating 500 million citizens, 20% of global purchasing power, the challenge has grown ever more complex. How to balance national sovereignty against the drive to centralise and how to retain a cultural identity under the impact of open borders and "the free movement of people, goods, services and capital"? Fears about German hegemony and voters' accelerating dislike of the EU's lack of accountability and transparency, and the direction of travel for the whole enterprise, has turned into mistrust. That mistrust turned to open hostility when the banks collapsed in 2008. Immense hardship hit countries such as the UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy – still facing huge cutbacks and appalling levels of youth unemployment. Instead of writing down debts, for instance, in Greece, taxpayers' money went to the banks, and swingeing cuts meant consumers had even less in their pockets. Far from equalising life chances and socialising risk, the most vulnerable had even less while the insulated cartel of EU technocrats appeared immune. In the UK, the fight for jobs, the relative ease with which benefits can be obtained, such as child benefit, compared with welfare systems in eastern Europe, have all added to the conviction that, as Cameron rightly says, the terms of engagement need an overhaul. Even the EU's outgoing president, José Manuel Barroso, is said to believe, the EU's institutions are dysfunctional and not democratic enough. His former adviser, Phillipe Legrain, agrees. "To save the EU," he says. "We need to fix it." So what needs to be done? In 2012, Britain contributed £8bn to the EU or one penny in every taxpayer's pound. Examples of the apparent profligacy of the EU aren't difficult to find – not least in the lack of rigour in accounting and the generosity of MEPs allowances. Then there are the pet projects; £8bn was spent on the A3 in Italy, under construction for 50 years as a result of Mafia interest. But EU redevelopment funding has also splendidly remodelled Birmingham city centre (£6m), and invested £4bn in Wales. On the plus side, the EU takes half of all the UK's exported goods. It supports more than 3 million jobs in Britain and half of those doing business with us say that our membership of the EU is an important factor. Outside the EU, competing with India and China, subjecting our British-made cars, for instance, to a 10% import tax, prospects would be grimmer. At the same time, the EU's directives have immeasurably improved lives in areas such as human rights, equal pay, sex discrimination and parental and part-time workers' entitlements. The EU's report card is, however, mixed. "Could do better" is certainly a theme. In the short term, the elections for the European parliament have little life. Poll after poll shows that voters say they believe they have no voice. Reasons for optimism exist. A poll this month of seven EU nations, including the UK, by Pew Research, shows that after a dramatic decline in the wake of the EU crisis, faith in one of the EU's funding principles – that European economic integration is good for the country — is up 15 points in the UK from a low of 26% last year to 41% now, the largest increase of the seven. Again, in the UK in 2013, 43% were in favour of the EU. Now, in spite of Farage fever, that figure has risen to 52%. Obviously, the fight for the EU is about more than rhetoric. Jobs and significant investment in education, business and innovation are vital if the EU is to flourish. The banking system needs restructuring so lending to business flows again. The conflicting needs of those 18 countries inside the Euro, and those that remain outside, need resolution. A new model of sovereignty within the EU has to be negotiated and less arrogance shown to the concerns of the electorate. Much of the current negative narrative, however, so hostile to "outsiders", has resurrected the uglier side of populism and nationalism. So, as we enter the polling booth, it's worth reminding ourselves that for more than 70 years, a united Europe has delivered a far better future than the carnage that came before. That ought to count for much. |