Actions speak louder than words

James Gubb, 6 March 2007

By Will Thavenot
David Cameron is set to make a speech today outlining his vision for Europe, calling for Europe to focus on the ‘three-g’s’ – globalisation, global warming, and global poverty. He has also published a joint letter with the Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, saying that Europe should be underpinned on three basic principles: commitment to open markets, commitment to a Europe of strong nation states, and a strong Trans-Atlantic alliance.
Everything in these statements is about looking outward, with Europe as a representative body, in a wider global community. This is all well and good. Europe is undoubtedly stuck in a rut, from which it is finding it hard to extricate itself. The same problems just will not go away, such as member states unable to reach a consensus on the constitution, the issue of Turkey and enlargement, energy and the environment – to name but a few. Something needs to happen, one way or another, or the European Union is in danger of gradually grinding to a halt.
But is David Cameron’s vision the way forward? Is it even a feasible proposal, or is it just pie-in-the-sky rhetoric from someone who has proved himself to be masterful in manipulating his audience, but has yet to cut the mustard and back up his wonderful and ambitious dreams with hard hitting realistic action?

The EU as it stands is an incredibly introverted and monolithic organisation, intent on governing at a supranational level, with the aim of ‘ever closer integration’. In his speech today, to his new European Parliament party, the Movement for European Reform, he is expected to talk of Europe being governed at an intergovernmental level instead, espousing the idea of strong nation states. This is a good idea in principle, and is how the idea of a European community was first envisioned by many. There is no need for a supranational level of government, and as can be seen the constitution debacle, it isn’t effective, and isn’t what the European public want.
One only has to look at the history of European governance, to see that ‘ever closer integration’ simply isn’t needed. Following the two World Wars, there was an over-riding desire, understandably, to find a system that tied European nations together. But Europe was not a ‘United States of Europe’, as it is verging towards now, but was instead a loose coalition of nations, in the form of the ECSC, backed up by global intergovernmental bodies in the UN and Nato. Perhaps there was also a strong and over-riding desire to avoid further bloodshed and devastation, but either way, the prospect of Europe going to war in the same way is almost unimaginable today. The reality is that attempts to subvert hundreds of years of individual European identities, and repress a nation’s natural patriotic instincts, for the single goal of a European super state, resulted in conflict and rebellion. Perhaps this is what we are beginning to see, in a peaceful form, over the constitution? It will be interesting to see what happens in France or the Netherlands if they try and re-introduce the constitution, effectively saying to their voters that they gave the wrong answer the first time, so now they’ll present it in a different way, and expect the right answer this time!
The EU, in its current guise with its current ambitions has gone as far as it can, and this would appear to be something David Cameron has realised. But it’s all very well him calling for reform, and how he envisions Europe’s future, but he must also answer how he is going to get there. So far all we have had is a pledge to pull out of the EPP, and form a new political grouping. To even form this new grouping he needs to have five countries signed up, which he intends to have done by the next round of EP elections in 2009. So far he has one.
But Cameron is right to recognise that Europe may be at a turning point, and he is right to jump on this opportunity and make his mark. Let us hope that he uses this speech to draw a line in the sand, both between himself and his opposition, so British voters have a clear choice, but also to draw a line under the EU’s past, as a signal that it is time to move on. The supranational model has been tried, and it has failed. It is now time to reform and innovate, but above all move on from the stagnant mire the EU is currently in, through bold actions rather than worthy words.