An “old car… heading in the wrong direction”: The State of the European Union

By Lucia Muchova | February 8, 2012

Three distinguished Members of the European Parliament spoke at the Heritage Foundation about possible alternatives to the Brussels-style European integration. Geoffrey Van Orden (UK), Derk Jan Eppink (Belgium) and Jan Zahradil (Czech Republic), leading members among the European Conservatives and Reformists, questioned the responses of European leaders to the Euro-crisis, the effectiveness of the new Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the one-sided view of the EU by the United States.

The speakers agreed that the current crisis is not just about the Euro. According to Zahradil, the very integration model that has dominated Europe for decades should be put under scrutiny. Van Orden talked about a loss of confidence in the western liberal democracy. He called for “more democracy” and less power for Brussels where ideologically motivated politicians drive the EU agenda, leaving the European electorate with little or no say. The model of European integration is like an “old car… that is heading in the wrong direction,” said Van Orden. The present institutional form of the EU and the policy responses adopted by France and Germany seem to be set in stone and any talk about alternatives is unwelcome. “Brussels does not want to hear alternatives” to its more integration, more taxation, more bailouts strategy, commented Eppink.

Yet, alternative is precisely what the three speakers came to present. Certainly one of the main aims of the discussion was to dispute the view that everyone in the European Parliament pulls at the same end of the rope. American center-right groups, Zahradil argued, sometimes misinterpret the notion of European federalism as promoted by the European People’s Party in the European Parliament. “European federalism” is often very far from the Jeffersonian kind of federalism with a strong private sphere, limited welfare system, open public opinion and decentralization. In Zahradil’s view, “European federalism,” as used in the European Parliament, is much more of a “continual transfer of power from nation states to EU institutions.” On this supra-national level, democracy is likely to suffer.

In terms of the US-EU Relations, the speakers argued that it is not self-evident that the US benefits from a united Europe. Van Orden emphasized that the CSDP merely replicates the NATO without the US.  When it comes down to it, there is no united European military response (see the case of Libya). The CSDP does not contribute to defence or democracy, said Van Orden. Its added value is thus questionable. In matters of security, inter-governmentalism still prevails. The speakers would argue, this should be the case in other areas as well. Europe has gone through different stages of integration and disintegration. Ultimately, a supra-national EU is not the end-all and be-all and Europe’s partners should consider that.

 

Note: the speakers were not speaking on behalf of the European Parliament. 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter