Europe after the double failure of the Summit June 2005

By: Hatto Fischer, Athens

---

It may be too early to anticipate things to follow now that the European Summit under the Presidency of Luxembourg has failed in a double sense: to realize what the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by France and Holland really means and to alter basic attitudes leading to a horrific budget way outside accountability and transparency. No constitution, no budget – the double negation draws from now on the real borders of limitations for what Europe can never become, namely mature enough to go beyond the national self-interests and constitute a democratic entity of its own.

This is not a time then for blaming the other. Rather the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty left already all EU Institutions without legitimacy and consequently the Summit was a demonstration of national interests by the member states. Absent were the citizens of Europe, indeed no one was there to represent Europe. The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, does not count as true representative. He was hived into that seat by Tony Blair. Insofar all accepted in the end the deal made between national leaders, they choose to ignore a much more competent man as demonstrated during the Summit: Claude Juncker from Luxembourg. That has tradition: the power brokerage between member states about who shall head the Commission ends up in agreeing on a candidate who cannot challenge the national leaders, but as the fateful time of Santer demonstrated already, a weak President of the Commission means trouble for Europe.

Indeed, the difference between these two men, Juncker and Barroso alone, on how they responded to the crisis, tells enough of a story. Juncker was ashamed that the 10 new member states made an offer to reduce aid due to them, so as to salvage a compromise on the budget. What makes it worse: that offer was not honored by the others. Juncker realized the politicians he was talking to did not realize the crisis they were about to enter. By contrast Barroso smiled, joked and tried to say indirectly that he likes the direction in which things are moving. His facial expression showed no alarm about the mess around him for he could imagine quite a good life for him personally under the British EU Presidency.

Having himself been a supporter of the war in Iraq, Barroso has enough common ground with Tony Blair who as his protector will make sure he will not be questioned in how he manages the Commission. Both profit in the end from a weak and inefficient Commission. It will give Blair ample room to shine in the media as the reformer and not as the one who lied about the reasons to go to war over Iraq.

The promotion and protection Barroso receives from his mentor is an example of the kind of networking needed at European level to protect the own job. It is done regardless whether or not the person hived into the job will be doing a good job or not. The latter does not count as long as certain safeguards are in place. People spend 80% of their working time on just that: safeguarding their positions through networking. They do this even through marriage as in old times when kings married off their daughters to a rival threatening to become more powerful than oneself. Everyone working at European level knows how vicious this reality inside institutions can be come. Although stuffed with all kinds of privileges, it is marked by countless artificial hierarchies making it into a minefield of possible misunderstandings and high risk to offend those who do not feel themselves recognized enough, even though but a mere vanity. Certainly EU institutions have that in them, the European Parliament and European Commission included: a golden cage without exit strategy and no one daring to speak out the truth once caught inside.

Yes, that Iraq war does loom in the background. It is odd to see, but true to the bone, that the two opponents of that war, namely Schroeder and Chirac are weakened by recent developments. As a matter of fact it has become self understood in the media that Schroeder will loose the next general election to be held in Germany most likely in September. The irony is that Schroeder saved Europe from a budget crisis back in 2002 when he showed willingness to put even more burdens on Germany’s shoulders while the rest were satisfied in just demanding as much as they could from the EU budget without ever bothering to ask where the money was coming from.

During the run-up to the French Referendum on May 29th, it became clear that those advocating a ‘No’ did not pay so much attention to the fact that the EU budget and therefore the agricultural subsidies given to France needed reform. In recalling what Schumpeter said, namely that the budget has in history the loudest voice, it should have been clear that not the Constitutional Treaty should be rejected, but the way old privileges are protected. The EU budget is in dire need of a positive change and, in particular, the agricultural subsidies given to France underlines that some member states receive subsidies way out of proportion. This includes also England in terms of rebates. The choice made by especially Chirac and Blair but also by the Dutch prime minister reinforces already the negativity of Europe linked now with the failed referendum on the Constitutional Treaty.

The EU budget is fostering things no one hardly anyone understands. It is the key to distribution of wealth in Europe and as such has created a network economy with each member state specializing in how it ensures that own interests are looked after well and in the most expedient way in Brussels. When someone goes from Athens to Brussels, the saying is “good, now you can work for Greece!” It never occurs to those keen to have their self interests served first that it might be good to work for Europe.

After the double failure of the Summit Europe has become a lame duck – such image might be befitting when sitting beside a pond and pondering where to go next. As the politicians left the Council building in Brussels, they may have wondered why no one was capable of calling them over to sit beside a homeless person on a park bench and deliberate about some other things in life. But deliberation – an intellectually thought through process with everyone agreeing once the cultural consensus became a prime base for decision making with everyone participating - was never something politicians of the member states practiced or learned to recognize as the basis of the European methodology to bring about the European project.

If anything, then the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty has revealed Europe’s true and only face in the wish to continue in the same old way. By rejecting the European methodology, there is revealed not the face of a Poker Player hardened by concealments of inner tensions but that of the Joker. It is the face of negotiators who reject anything if they think in future to have a better bargaining position. That was the motivation of the French voting ‘non’: a misled belief they could gain a better bargaining position in future (and after twenty years of failure to reform their own economy and after fifty years of a political rationale in favor of Europe with Germany integrated). Due to this bad habit, politicians like Chirac but also others engage themselves over and again in the same political game. They do not realize what those who are not participating stand to loose, namely everything. Instead they continue to squander precious time and perspectives needed to answer pressing questions and needs of the people. And all is done in the name of some lofty declaration that what they want is a political Europe, more democratic, more social – an outdated justification of mere privileges and the chance not to do anything in reality for Europe but only for oneself.

Those gathered at the Summit should review the footages shot of them. After they got out of their black limousines and then gathered in the halls, one could see the discrepancy between what was at stake and what they showed on the surface, in their faces. For they were laughing, joking, greeting each other, approaching one another, if only to disperse again for the sake of joining another cluster of politicians. Everyone seems to know European networking at the highest level is really about finding out even in the last minute before making the decision who would support his or her own interest an cause. It was shown on the TV screen that all used the occasion to demonstrate at least in their faces in front of the cameras their ‘media’ customized smiles. It was an odd sight but easily recognizable that these politicians were making themselves believe a different version to what was really the case: a grand disaster in the making for Europe. Clearly they did not want to look into the face and prospects of that reality. Clearly all of them were out of step with history.

The decision they made, namely no decision on either the Constitutional Treaty or on the budget, is no laughing matter to Europe and the rest of the world. They all failed in the most terrible way. Trapped in the loneliness of the Summit, since far removed from ordinary citizens (many journalists felt especially the non elected EU officials were way off the mark with their remarks about those who voted against the Constitutional Treaty, thereby verifying this deeper sense of lack of democracy at European level), they had locked themselves into something else without fully realizing what it was.

At first sight it appears that they were trapped due to their commitments to their own electorate back home; certainly Chirac and Blair could not give in and walk away with the aura of being politicians with power, with the ability to move if not things, then at least ‘forward’ as Blair would declare in a triumphant gesture of self defeat. But at a more deeper level of analysis the reality at stake was not something to be negotiated about: the non negotiable part of the Constitutional Treaty is clearly the belief in a democratic Europe or not, and if yes, then what was needed and not existing once the Constitutional Treaty was rejected, was how to regain a form of legitimacy for the intergovernmental practice before debating even the budget. By failing to relate to the non negotiable part of Europe, they rejected Europe altogether.

It is not that these politicians are terribly out of touch with reality but rather once the European perspective is gone, they are just what they are: non European, national political leaders. But I suppose there is also some truth in this matter of being out of touch with reality altogether. This is especially the case if all of them have but servile advisors who will ever dare to tell them anything but the simple truth of the matter. The advisors and all those who prepare the Summit meant to lead up to a reality about which the assembled national political leaders can decide, they do not lie so much as they favor ‘contrived’ logics and thereby bend rules to make possible endless negotiations. The transformation of democracy was an issue Johannes Agnoli named the loss of freedom. In the exploration of working methods at European level, it might be better analyzed in future if seen as the re-transformation of positive deliberations back into negotiations. If there is no one willing to tell the politicians about the truth of that negative re-transformation, how can European governance be any better than what they are willing to hear and what is told to them?

The Irish poet Brendan Kennelly reflected upon this kind of ‘net-speak’ language twisting meanings around to serve nebulous interests of those who deem themselves to be above everybody else. This is certainly demonstrated by a politician like Tony Blair and what had cost him nearly the latest re-election, namely his arrogant style. But one does not need to go to Brussels to find such arrogance. There are directors of Municipal Development Agencies who are famous for saying “who cares what the Commission thinks or does”, since what counts to them is only the amount of money one can get out of any European program provided one does not have to work too hard to get that kind of money. Certainly European programs have been robbed of their purchasing power due to being perceived as mere sources of ‘easy money’ and due to neglect of commitments made to the Commission stripped them of their abilities to be innovative. Furthermore, they are hardly participatory in terms of both citizens and Non-Europeans.

The problem of implementation of European programs pertains especially on how they are managed: top down and superfluous. The managing authorities installed at national level e.g. Interreg – CADSES is located at the Ministry of Transport in Rome, Italy earn more money off these programs without being held accountable for the increasing misuse of EU funds for publicity stunts e.g. at the Interreg conference in Vienna April 2005. There is no longer any correspondence and dialog between citizens of Europe and Commission when these European projects are being implemented. At present everyone knows that the flow of payment has slowed down to a trickle due to many built-in delays brought about by ever greater financial controls at national, intra-national and European level. Set-up of projects can stretch by now to more than two years and still the engagement in an endless process to legalize the project is not over after such long duration of waiting after approval and really moving ahead in terms of substance and content of the project.

The problem of those who practice the net-speak language (by paying mere lip service to Europe) is that they do not practice two things: monitoring / evaluation and dissemination of information. The outcome is itself a process without direction. It leaves the European landscape full of half completed projects and people emptied of any European experience. In the end those who think they can afford ignoring European projects and their methodologies, they cultivate a kind of self centered claustrophobic arrogance about the conditions of reality. For instance, few people realize that European programs are not run directly by the Commission, but due to a re-nationalization of them by managing authorities which are not responsible to anyone. Consequently they fail to communicate the fact that working together with others is already a privilege compared to previous times when Europe was suffering under divisions and always near outbreaks of violence, indeed looming wars due to more often petty disputes than substantial issues e.g. the English aristocracy snubbing the German one and, therefore, engaged in a Game called war before too long.

Now that Europe has its true face of acquiescence due to failure, the calamities ahead will be great and wide spread. Already projections into the year 2006 and 2007 in a country like Greece say without these net contributions by Europe to this country there will be necessary for the government to make cuts and increase taxes. The economic and political fall-out of such loss of privileged life in the sense of social and economic well-being can hardly be imagined in the full sense at this moment. But the complexity of European governance will certainly come crushing down on everyone once no more extra money is available, the money gained out of the ‘European value’. It will mean exactly the looming everybody wanted to avoid by voting ‘no’ in the first place to the Constitutional Treaty; in the naïve belief by so doing they would prevent a liberalization of the market. They will see that the rejection of that Constitutional Treaty as a common framework will put Europe and everyone outside a manageable economy and society. All will have to learn to live the hard way. While many things are now uncertain, one thing is for certain: the reality outside institutional safeguards will provide from now on free of charge lessons that could have been learned differently if everyone had chosen the European way of working together. Indeed these terrible and horrible lessons ahead could have been avoided, provided a realistic attitude had prevailed in Europe.

It is hard to imagine how Europe will avoid further break-downs. The legitimacy crisis means without constitution everything will now re-constitute itself on the basis of nation states. Some may give up their membership; others may just participate as if in a trance. Tony Blair will have to see what authority he can muster as next EU President for there is a real risk he will call for a crisis summit and not all political leaders will show up. That then will be the next round of escalation in negativities burdening at an increasing velocity from now on Europe.

 

more Comments...