Frank Furedi

Hefty bailouts and a refugee tsunami threaten to overwhelm unaccountable EU
During a recent visit to Brussels I was struck by the uninhibited use of the word crisis by people who closely watch or inhabit the institutions of the European Union.

Crisis talk in Brussels is hardly new. What’s different today is the palpable sense of failure and confusion communicated, even by the most fervent advocates of the EU.

It is easy to dismiss this reaction as merely a symptom of the bitter conflict and rivalry unleashed by the crisis of the eurozone. But the problems are not confined to the domain of economics. The EU is also threatened by a political and cultural crisis.

With the Greek economy in a state of disintegration, European leaders know there is no alternative but to restructure this nation’s debt.

They may use the euphemism of re-profiling debt to avoid acknowledging the scale of the problem, but the spectre of insolvent nations haunts Europe.

Just a few weeks after pouring billions of euros into bailing out Portugal, it is evident the medicine is not working and that the eurozone is in big trouble. Inevitably, there is talk of reorganising Europe’s monetary union as more and more people have lost faith in the existing bailout strategy.

Opposition to this strategy has led to the growth of euroscepticism throughout the more prosperous regions of Europe. A recent opinion poll in Germany showed that 30 per cent of the respondents wanted an independent Germany, without a euro.

Last month, the True Finns, a nationalist party opposed to the economic rescue packages, came from nowhere to win almost 20 per cent of the popular vote and become the third largest party in parliament.

The True Finns’ success indicates that Europe’s economic woes have mutated into a political crisis. The euro-enthusiast political class stands exposed and is facing an electoral challenge from a variety of eurosceptic and populist movements.

Arguably the refugee crisis represents, at least in the short run, an even greater threat to European unity than the troubles afflicting the money market.

The Arab spring in North Africa and the Middle East was not supposed to turn into a political nightmare for the EU. At the outset, EU leaders boasted that these revolts provided Brussels with an opportunity to demonstrate its diplomatic muscle.

Sadly, Brussels was blessed with an unusually inept Foreign Minister, Catherine Ashton. Since her appointment 18 months ago, this former British Labour politician has been the subject of scorn and criticism by fellow diplomats.

Her inability to develop a strategy to deal with the consequences of the Arab revolt has turned the EU’s foreign policy into something of a diplomatic farce.

Tragically, the principal legacy of this amateurish experiment in foreign diplomacy is a European refugee crisis.

With tens of thousands of North African and Libyan refugees arriving on the shores of southern Europe, the question of who takes responsibility for their welfare has turned into a fundamental dispute about the meaning of national sovereignty.

In the wake of what Italian President Silvio Berlusconi described as a human tsunami, his government, along with those of other states, demanded that the Schengen open-border travel agreement be suspended.

This request represented a serious blow to the self-image of the EU, which had made the freedom of movement throughout the union a symbol of its project.

A far greater challenge to this symbol of EU values came from an unexpected quarter, the tiny state of Denmark. Earlier this month, the Danish government took unilateral action and announced permanent border controls.

Numerous pro-EU observers have rightly described this as the most serious challenge against the institution of the EU.

Predictably, European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso responded with a warning against the Danish taking such dangerous unilateral steps. What concerns Barroso and his colleagues is that if one tiny country feels confident to defy Schengen, then other countries will also feel empowered to pursue their national interests more robustly. It is important to note that concern about open borders is an issue of concern throughout western Europe. Rightly or wrongly, the idea that open borders are responsible for crime, drug importation, human trafficking, unemployment and cultural conflict has gained widespread traction. Sadly, in such circumstances the European idea is often seen as the cause of many of the uncertainties facing the people of the continent.

Earlier this month it was reported that the EC is to spend pound stg. 225 million ($344m) on its numerous propaganda crusades. It will devote about pound stg. 84m to explain European policy and to better connect with citizens.

According to a memo, the aim of these public relations initiatives is boosting awareness of the EU’s existence and legitimacy, polishing its image and highlighting its role. It is understandable that the EU requires the services of hundreds of spin doctors to create awareness of its legitimacy. For what the present divisions in Europe signify is that the institutions of the EU possess little legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

In the past, people feared European unity would be undermined by Franco-German rivalries. Alternatively, analysts pointed to the threat posed by the US or the Soviet bloc.

Paradoxically, Europe proved surprisingly effective in managing the historical conflicts that created so much instability in in the past. Even the challenge of German reunification and the absorption of eastern Europe into the EU proceeded surprisingly smoothly.

A distinct feature of the EU’s political process is that it is self-consciously based on the principle of insulated decision-making.

From the standpoint of the European political elites, one of the virtues of EU institutions is that they are insulated from the kind of public pressure and accountability they experience in their national parliaments.

Consequently, the EU is able to adopt policies that could be contentious and difficult to justify in a more open national parliamentary setting.

In effect, politicians can continually hide behind the EU’s invisible decision-making process and claim that such and such a policy wasn’t my idea, before adding: unfortunately we have no choice but to go along with this Europe-wide directive.

Insulated decision-making may work as an administrative convenience. But the inevitable consequence is that it diminishes the capacity of European politicians to motivate and inspire their electorate. It depends on public relations to minimise the effect of its legitimacy deficit. Its reliance on an army of spin doctors is unlikely to inspire affection and loyalty.

In previous times the EU could carry on with its behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing.

However in the present era decisions affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people cannot be insulated from the anger and hostility of the public.

The significance of the Danes’ defiance of an EU treaty is that at least one government has realised that hiding behind insulated decision-making is no longer an easy option.

Read this article in The Australian here.

First published by The Australian, 21 May 2011

Tweet