You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Europe sinks into self-doubt
2005-09-25
Unfortunately, the Islamacists among them don't suffer from the same limitation.
Almost before it was born, the constitutional treaty for a new Europe was dead. The so-called ‘European project' is stalled, the drive towards ever-closer union is in reverse and the leading economies of the European Union are stagnant. Euroland, in short, is in a state of chassis.

This autumn promises to bring tough budget negotiations, grandstanding at summits and continued uncertainty at the heart of the European project. Although speaking mostly on condition of anonymity, the gloomy admissions of Eurocrats in Brussels last week - some in a series of briefings for Irish journalists - were mostly statements of the obvious.

What was more striking was the sense of pessimism that appears to be overtaking the European Commission, headed by president Jose Manuel Barroso. For the first time in decades, the engine that drove forward the European project appears to be spluttering.

On the surface, life goes on as before. The food is still excellent and the wines are still fine in the many restaurants throughout the massive modernist buildings that house thousands of Brussels officials, diplomats, lobbyists and public representatives. The Belgian beer flows freely in the bars around the magnificent Berlaymont building. But the mountains of langoustines and rivers of vin de pays are being consumed by increasingly worried men and women.

Less than a year after he assumed power, Barroso's leadership is now being openly questioned. The Lisbon Agenda - a package of ambitious economic targets which the former Portuguese prime minister chose as the benchmark to judge him - looks ever more remote. In the press room, Portuguese journalists have begun to whisper to their European colleagues that they never really rated Barroso.
He's lost the press! Oh no!
Last week, Barroso outlined a number of facts to the Brussels press corps. “Fact number two,” he said, “the constitution is not going to be ratified in the near future.

The subject will come up for debate again when the time is right, but in the meanwhile we must not succumb to paralysis.”

The translation was carried simultaneously into the earphones of the polyglot press corps. The real translation was this: We are paralysed.

After the social Europe of Jacques Delors and the enlargement of Romano Prodi, Barroso chose to make the Lisbon Agenda his principal task. It was a bold decision which began to look foolhardy a long time ago and is now beginning to look suicidal. “From the moment the Lisbon strategy was announced, GDP growth took off on a downward curve, from 3 per cent to 1 per cent,” said one senior economic official in the Berlaymont last week. “Investment growth turned negative.”

The dilemma for Barroso - and for the European Commission - is that shifting the European economy on its axis is not something that Brussels can do. The economic reforms that are needed to kick-start the German and French economies can only be implemented by national governments. “Unless Barroso can get the co-operation of key member states' leaders, we will not deliver the Lisbon Agenda,” said a senior official.

But Barroso's fate is out of his own hands and events in Germany, France and Italy indicate economic reforms are as far away as ever.

The current political and economic climate is the most difficult that Europe has ever faced, according to one source. Weak economies are crying out for structural reform. Politically, everyone is screaming for leadership. “The commission is going through a collective heart attack,” blurted British MEP Caroline Jackson before correcting herself: “Well, er, it's more of a stumble, really.”

“People are asking, what is the purpose of Europe?” says a senior bureaucrat. But what has really changed in Brussels is that the high and mighty in the European Commission are now asking “What is the purpose of Europe?”
Start a new world war?
It's not the only stark reversal in recent years. Previously, national governments were accustomed to blaming Europe for all kinds of things that they had to do but didn't really want to - particularly in the areas of the environment and consumer protection. We're being forced to do this by Brussels, they said. Now it's the commission that's blaming national governments.

“We are being called upon to provide leadership,” complained one senior bureaucrat, “at a time of such weak leadership in some key member states.”

Last week, the commissioners gathered in a country retreat outside Brussels to consider these and other pressing questions. While the corpse of the treaty and the need for Europe to communicate better were on the agenda, continuing economic stasis in many members states is still the great underlying problem.

The causes are structural, certainly, but there is a willingness among some - including commissioner Charlie McCreevy - to look at the problem from different perspectives, from cultural ones, for instance. “There is a lack of dynamism, a lack of willingness to become entrepreneurs,” complained one longtime bureaucrat last week.

These are more than sociological questions. In the words of one commission official, “The problem now is we are faced with the question of how to finance the European social model.” Others are thinking the unthinkable - what if the existence of the social model is now one of the factors inhibiting growth. Can Europe square that circle? As one senior official remarked ruefully, “If this is true, there is no way out of this'‘.
Couple this realization to the demographic bomb -- negative fertility rate for European women and high fertility rate for immigrant women -- and Eurabia is looking more likely all the time.
McCreevy's exhortations in favour of economic reform - which would once have been seen as almost vulgar - are now being listened to. Certainly, central and eastern European countries have heard and heeded the Irish example of low taxes and flexible labour. Turning around the French and German behemoths is another matter, and Brussels seems powerless.

But does any of this matter to us in Ireland. It all seems remote, opaque even.

If Europe was really in crisis, this would be a matter for the gravest of concern for Ireland. But it's not, really. There is - or shortly will be - a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the chief Eurocrat. There is a crisis among those for whom Europe is the commission, the institutions. But it's far from universally accepted that to be a good European, you must be dedicated to “ever closer union'‘ - particularly to political union. This vision of Europe has previously been in the ascendant in Brussels but it has been shattered by events of the past few years, and by the French and Dutch votes. This is the Europe that is in crisis; these are the death throes of federalism.

There are other visions of Europe, such as the Irish one.

Despite having access to the grotesquely deformed British debate on Europe, the Irish remain committed to a European Union, but one of nation states. Some powers should be devolved to Brussels, while others - such as tax - should remain firmly at home. This appears to be the vision shared - if not by Brussels - by most of Europe.

Unlikely as it may seem, in the great debate about Europe's future, the Irish appear to be the winners.
Posted by:lotp

#6  "grotesquely deformed British debate on Europe"

They mean that the British have a well informed debate on the EU (not Europe is NOT the same as the EU!) (don't fall for this common journo trick).

The British would leave the EU is we had a referendum. The UK referendum was "cancelled" after the UK rgions massively rejected Prescotts local government "reforms".

We would reject the EU in even vastly higher numbers.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2005-09-25 17:31  

#5  And which ones are those?

Maybe standard the signs on roadways or for the loo. Oh, wait, they've already done that. Just ignor [Brussels].
Posted by: Charong Speath5297   2005-09-25 15:48  

#4  â€œThe problem now is we are faced with the question of how to finance the European social model.” Others are thinking the unthinkable - what if the existence of the social model is now one of the factors inhibiting growth. Can Europe square that circle? As one senior official remarked ruefully, “If this is true, there is no way out of this'.

Interesting quote. How to finance the European social model? Unsustainable. One must adapt or face the consequences of taxing oneself into oblivion.

The existing model is unsustainable. If Europe realizes this, then maybe they will do something about it. Recognizing the problem is the first step, so there is hope. 1 in a million, but still hope, heh.

I like the part about if it's true, then there is no way out of this. Great telling response of a unimaginative bureaucrat. We're doomed, I tell ya, doomed!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-09-25 14:03  

#3  " Some powers should be devolved to Brussels, ..."

And which ones are those?

Note it doesn't say.
The EU is either going to die or to become a non-democratic tyrant. There is no middle when an unelected bureaucracy takes over. When they make the laws and then can't enforce or pay for them...they'll make laws to raise the money and create the army and judiciary and police force necessary.

If the individual nations say NO! Then the EU either dies or fights. I hope that THIS time we stay the hell out of the European Civil War V. 3.4
Posted by: AlanC   2005-09-25 13:32  

#2  As the old saying goes "You do not have an inferiority complex..."
Posted by: gromgoru   2005-09-25 13:21  

#1  Some powers should be devolved to Brussels, while others - such as tax - should remain firmly at home.

Learned from the American experience with the 16th Admendment. Power flows with the money.
Posted by: Hupairong Omoling4672   2005-09-25 13:01  

00:00