Politics
In Nice, who cares about John Bull?
Published 11 December 2000
David Lawdayfinds most EU members have their minds on other things than British vetoes
It will have been obvious to us all that the European summit in Nice was expressly convened to screw Britain. To undermine us. Rob us blind. Detach us from Nato and our American friends. To make absolutely sure we are not what we were and won't ever be what we were again. Thank heavens the Tories, Telegraphs and tabloids have been there to warn us.
It is curious, given the size of the task of ruining Britain, that the Eurosorcerers gathered in Nice to stick pins into John Bull had time for anything else. Yet there they were, Jacques Chirac of France, Gerhard Schroder of Germany and co, frittering away valuable time deciding how best to enlarge the union so that it will work when a dozen new countries join. Clearly it was a dodge but they didn't seem quite focused on wrecking the British way of life.
The problem was, with European integration about to move ahead by a large leap, they had pressing interests of their own to see to. A day or so before the summit, I met an elderly ex-Soviet diplomat who blamed Britain for the woes of the world. It was Victorian Britain, he held, that invented national interests. National interests were a plague. They'd ruined Russia and would soon ruin America. What counted were human interests.
Very possibly. But while the EU would clearly like to confront the problem to which this Soviet veteran alludes, it has succeeded so far only in blunting its members' national interests. Everyone still parades them. In view of all the pre-Nice bluster in Britain, it may indeed be a disappointment to our purple-veined Eurosceptics that all eyes were not on us in Nice. Dammit, Britain's proud military history wasn't remotely at stake. Nato's capacity for living comfortably with a European rapid reaction force was taken for granted. Yes, there was relief that Tony Blair was prepared to join other government heads in shedding quite a lot of national vetoes, even in tricky areas like social policy and transport. Up to half of the 50 or so decision-making areas still subject to national vetoes were booked to be settled from now on by majority vote. They did not include trade, immigration or, thanks largely to Gordon Brown, taxation. Britain, with Sweden, was still seen as laggard-in-chief in the realm of veto-dropping. But the drive for increased majority voting - without which it is generally agreed an enlarged Europe will be unmanageable - had thrown up conflicts that went beyond keeping Britain on side.
The fixation in France, the EU president until the year's end, has been a dispute with Germany. This has rather more substance than Tory myths about integration perils, since any rift between France and Germany goes to the heart of European unity. One idea of Nice was to redefine what constitutes a voting majority. The present system, by which the four most heavily populated countries (Germany, France, Britain and Italy), housing a large majority of Europeans, have ten votes each in ministerial decision-making, is skewed. Smaller countries with a descending share of votes are over-represented, ie, they have proportionately more votes than population size alone merits. Conceivably, the smaller bunch can team up to form a "qualified majority" overriding all of the big four. In reworking the system, Germany had pressed for due account to be taken (three extra votes, say) of the fact that its 82 million population comfortably outnumbers the 60 million or so of its three biggest partners.
France refused - and thus deepened a seemingly growing rift between the two countries that created European unity and have kept it moving ahead. The French have gone back to the archives on this. Early Europarchment shows that Jean Monnet, the "father of Europe", discussed Franco-German ties with Konrad Adenauer in the 1950s and received a pledge that parity of power between the two countries would be the permanent bedrock of European partnership.
The French argue that other factors enter the balance, such as the economy, in which a buoyant France has indeed been pulling Germany along lately. "We didn't make Europe because someone has 80 million and someone else 60 million," rasps Pierre Moscovici, France's minister for Europe. "We made it for peace . . . and I believe political parity is fundamental to this."
None the less, Gerhard Schroder went to Nice telling Germans they would get satisfaction. Interpret this how you wish. The Eurosceptic reflex is to say it illustrates German ambitions to run Europe, to throw its weight around. I believe Schroder's intent is to demonstrate that Germany is a "normal" country once more, with fewer inhibitions about seeking its due. An end-of-summit compromise looked possible. Yet the underlying gulf is between a Germany that wants a federal Europe and a France that prefers a Europe of nation states.
Britain, then, by no means stands out from its partners with respect to problems, real and imagined, over increased integration. National interests had Nice heaving. Spain stood in the way on regional aid, wanting to be sure it would keep receiving plenty when poor newcomers such as Poland join. Sweden and Austria dug in against rotating the smaller brethren's seats on the European Commission in order to streamline the EU executive. Holland wanted more votes than Belgium.
It might have been supposed that the summit would not end in the deadlock that threatened. This is how Europe moves ahead on political integration. Slowly, bumpily. The archetypal creative muddle. The union is nothing if not an original construction. What drives most members, starting with France and Germany, is a desire to get on with it. They will collide on how to get there, but they are committed to doing so. Something of the Soviet diplomat's blunt logic grips them. Can Britain resolve this question for itself?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
