(This article was written and published in May of 2005, after the French and the Dutch rejected the European constitution. This belief of the eventual disintegration of the EU is one I have held, and continue to hold since my freshmen days – circa 1997. I have to admit that what I foresaw then has not happened and that somehow the union exists. Not only exists but thrives in some fashion. But the divisions referred to here do exist. Turkey continue to struggle to gain membership and keep on getting excuse after excuse. I still wait.)
The official beginning of the European Union can be traced to the signing of the Treaty of Rome on 25th March 1957 which set up the European Economic Community (EEC) between Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The treaty was basically aimed at setting up a Common Market across its member countries to allow free and unrestricted movement of goods and services. Therefore, the EU of today was originally set up to achieve a single market and to reap the benefits of economic integration across the various countries of Europe.
However, after achieving much of the goals of the original EEC, albeit on a much delayed timetable, Europe decided to move forward towards a tighter, more comprehensive integration. This was formalized by the Treaty of Maastricht signed in 1993 establishing the EU. The Maastricht Treaty called for an economic and monetary union; a totally different kettle of fish from a Customs Union or a Common Market as it entails the forging of a single currency and a unified central bank. This attempt to morph the association beyond pure economic integration allowed for disagreements to be surfaced. The fault lines to be felt.
The fault lines which lie at the heart of EU can be traced back to the Treaty of Rome which established a cosy club of like minded countries with similar cultural, historical, economic, social and religious backgrounds. The British was not a founding member and in fact set up a competing body called the European Free Trade Association.
The success of EEC, convinced the British to try and join but their membership was vetoed twice by French President de Gaulle. And the British were allowed to join only after the resignation of de Gaulle in 1972.
However, the British had always seen themselves as more than just Europeans. The Battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo had decidedly established that. The issue of the British contribution and the size of its’ rebate, which lies at the core of some the most heated disagreements of today were contentious issues even in 1979. Britain declined to join the single currency with an “opting out” and has instead continued to maintain independency regarding the “coin of the realm”.
In fact, the British public has maintained their skepticism regarding the usefulness of full membership with the EU and it is a known secret that the reason Blair has been postponing the promised referendum is because he is sure to loose it. Thus, within the original founders of the European Dream, Britain is seen as a sort of opportunistic member who is happy to gain from the economic benefits of the Common market but unwilling to go the distance as a full fledged member.
Additionally the EU is very much a Pan-European Christian Club and is largely apprehensive about diluting membership especially with regard to admitting a non-Christian country like Turkey. While professing egalitarian values EU cannot of course, openly deny membership to Turkey. However, the long delays before a firm offer, the earliest date at which Turkey can join (now said to be 2012) and the very fact that the part of reasons for the French no vote on the constitution hinged on Turkey’s membership, speaks volumes of the degree to which Europe is ready to transform itself into a mult-icultural, multi-religious association. Once you let those Muslims in, you never know ….
Another complication arose from the fact that these countries, by and large are represented by a specific economic model. One where labour unions are strong and wage rates high. Workers in these economies demand shorter working weeks preferring instead to spending more time with their family. They are willing to pay a higher percentage to social security schemes and in return expect their government to look after them. Health insurance covers medical, pharmaceutical and hospitalization costs. Social insurance covers family allowances, maternity benefits and old-age and disability insurance. In order to work shorter weeks and enjoy greater benefits tax rates are high.
The people of “old Europe” a la Rumsfeld, are not ready to give up their social model and change their economy and social life to one driven by intense competition. The expansion of EC in the 1980’s with the entrance of Greece, Spain and Portugal and further expansion in 1995 had already exposed these fault lines as industries slowly started to move to countries where labor is less expensive, overheads lower and overall costs of production cheaper. Additional difficulties arose with the 2004 expansion of the EU and the entrance of 10 mostly former Eastern bloc states into the EU club.
The entrance of countries like Czech Republic, Lithuania and Latvia who could offer relatively cheap locations for Industrial activities exerted substantially additional pressure on the already burdened fault lines making the present quandary seen as almost inevitable.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the club of Old Europe represent the high culture, as least as they believe it, of the civilized world. The world of Goethe, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Napoleon and Descartes. Centuries of social, cultural and moral and ethical development. The den of euro-centrism and elitist thinking. A dream built around such concepts does not, cannot hold up to expansion on egalitarian principles.
It is the vote on the European constitution; one that calls for a European President and Foreign Minister, that has finally set the stage to exposing these fault lines. The charm offensive that kept the fault lines nicely covered did not work any more and the true and actual nature of Europe, which had so far been smothered in political doublespeak are slowly being exposed. The spat between Blair and Chirac is not just a character issue representing mutual personal dislike. It is a replay of the row between Labor’s Wilson and de Gaulle in the 60’s. The same forces are in play here. These are symptoms of the deeper tensions, and rumblings deep within the core of Europe.
Therefore Europe has found itself in a dilemma of its own making. The initial drive was for a Common Market in order to achieve purely economic gains. However, when political flavors started to be introduced to a purely economic mix, the taste started to sour. While professing to be egalitarian in their values, old Europe is very much a club for the cultural, national and religious elite and are not willing to change that. Finally Europeans, by and large are not willing to give up their comfortable and pampered lifestyle purely in order to keep a Union which they do not have faith in. Not yet.
May 2005