How much more jousting for national power before the back of the EU is broken?

James Gubb, 30 July 2007

Although only just out of the spotlight of the endless reports on the recent ICG mandate (and no, this is not yet another spiel on the dry subject of the EU constitution), Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s nationalist Polish government is again railing against the rulings of EU authorities. While a dispute over the construction of a bypass through the Rospuda Valley might seem somewhat trivial on the surface, it actually cuts deep into that irritating thing the EU has been plagued with time and time again throughout its history: national sovereignty – writes Pippa Knott.

Throughout June this year, Poland repeatedly registered opposition to the voting weightings and decision-making processes proposed in the draft treaty – to the point where it seemed likely to veto the signing of the draft treaty itself. Today, the focus of controversy has shifted to environmental issues. Despite explicit opposition from the European Commission, the Polish government has so far failed to stop contractors from pushing ahead with the construction of a bypass through the Rospuda Valley, planned to begin on 1st August. The Polish government have justified their defiance of European rulings on the grounds that the road construction is a viaduct – an above-ground structure that would cause minimal damage to animal and plant life. At the same time, residents have complained of severely heavy traffic flow through the town of Augustow, solvable only by the proposed bypass. Environmentalists and the EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas maintain, however, that the construction would cut through a peat-bog area and primeval woodland, causing irreparable damage to numerous habitats and species protected by strict EU environmental laws.
The EU can impose financial sanctions on Poland if it fails to comply with ECJ rulings, which are currently being hurried through to prevent the recommencement of the project that has been halted for the nesting season. Warsaw stands to lose EU funds for further sections of the road if it contravenes the EU’s environmental directives. However, this event – the latest in a series of conflicts between Poland and Brussels – seems to raise questions over and above those surrounding this specific dilemma and its immediate resolution.
To me, this scenario is a repetition of a battle played out frequently and in numerous guises, over questions of national sovereignty and the balance of power between central bodies and peripheral nation states. This has plagued the EU since its inception, and continues to dominate political relations in Europe – to what should be seen as an insurmountable obstacle in the face of either even further integration.
Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, WWF Polska and the Polish Society for the Protection of Birds, that have petitioned the government and the EU to halt the building have reiterated the point that, in achieving its much-coveted status as an EU member state, Poland consented to abide by the rules of the institution it was signing up to. They think it seems to defy common sense that the Polish government should be able to – or even should wish to – challenge the EU’s rulings after its long pursuit of member status, finally gained in 2004.
Yet the debate surrounding this issue is not so different from that that abounds in Britain with almost every publicised piece of EU legislation. How far should the role of the EU in national politics be an advisory one based on cooperation and how far is it one of unquestionable authority? It is this question that dominates rivalry over European issues, and yet (with the clear exception of the UK Independence Party), not one parliamentary party has been prepared to wholeheartedly award British governance superiority over European governance – or vice versa.
It is easy to criticise the actions of the Polish government for very tightly treading the line regarding their EU ‘obligations’. Yet this issue connects very closely to the complex debates that rage in Britain over the EU over the place that EU policies should have within our national political system. Only when a consensus has been reached as to the rightful role of the EU in each member state’s domestic politics – if any at all – can we begin to unequivocally demand that each nation follows specific policies. With indecision as rife as it currently is in Britain over the proper and correct role of the EU, we cannot begin to challenge the approach of other countries.
It is the permanent jostling of national governments for power, both within EU institutions and against them, that undermines the potential of the structure to have any positive influence at all on international relations. The EU continues to be crippled by nation states that have signed up to its treaties yet, on the basis of national sovereignty do not comfortably support the superiority of its institutions. It is imperative that European countries, and not least Britain, decide on the place it really wants. If this is not the same as those who want further integration – which it surely is not – then we should at the very least be seriously thinking of pushing hard for a multi-speed Europe.
Update
Further to Monday’s blog – news that Poland has backed down over the Rospuda Valley Bypass construction demonstrates a continuing bi-polar pull, towards further European integration or reclaimed national sovereignty.
Member governments – particularly those such as the current Polish administration – continue to present themselves as prepared to defend their nations’ interests, and moreover their sovereignty, to the end. Yet ultimately, the European mass continues to exert a superior gravitational pull, as it has done from the outset.
The Rospuda incident demonstrates that it is in the electoral interest of governments to visibly stand up to EU domination. However, for the short term at least (and as long as the ‘sacred’ ideals of European cooperation and integration persist), members’ governmental priorities are vulnerable to being sacrificed for the greater European good.