Eurosoc - Zappo Sets Out Euro-Vision
18 February, 2005
As Europe prepares to vote on the constitution, citizens are getting used to their governments explaining what the EU constitutional treaty will mean for the union in future.
All except Britain's, that is, where the government spends most of its time explaining that the constitution is actually nothing at all like what our European partners imagine it to be.
Today, officials have been desperately plastering over unfortunate, but telling comments from Spain's prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Spain votes on Sunday, and citizens are expected to approve the constitution, despite worries about voter apathy. Spain has done rather well out of the EU - voters identify the union with assisting the nation's switch to democracy, and furthermore it has benefitted from billions in EU subsidies. These subsidies are likely to dry up shortly as cash is redirected to help needier states in central Europe, so it is perhaps fortunate for pro-constitution officials that the vote is being held at a time when Spain feels positively disposed towards Brussels.
Few in Spain have read the constitutional treaty, so in a radio interview Zappo helpfully explained to them what it would mean:
“We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.” (...)
“We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.”
Hmmm... well it does fit in with the constitutional demand that "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy.” Nevertheless, British foreign office spokesmen have spent today parrying away Zappo's claims. One said that Britain's embassies, place in NATO and foreign policy will stay - and this cannot change "without our agreement." Which is hardly reassuring.
Unlikely Alliance
Oddly, the idea that Europe should open its own embassies and develop a federal foreign policy may be gathering friends in high places. Yesterday we reported on how high-ranking US officials, including Condi Rice and potentially George Bush, were coming round to the idea of the EU constitution. Today, Gerard Baker in the Times examines the idea further.
Traditionally, the US has paid lip service to the ideal of closer EU integration, especially on foreign policy, where the old state department dilemma of "If I want to get Europe on the phone, who the hell should I call" still holds sway. However, increasingly blatant anti-Americanism from the French, German and Belgian governments have persuaded the current administration that a British-style Europe of closely aligned nation states is a better partner than a federal entity dominated by Paris and Berlin.
Part of Washington's overtures to Europe this month has been an attempt to soften US opposition to the latter vision.
What can they be thinking of? Only last month, Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schröder described NATO - the world's most successful military alliance - as "outdated." France and Germany have made no secret of their desire to provide China with the arms it needs to threaten the US in the Pacific. Both Schröder and his French counterpart Jacques Chirac have openly considered building ties with Russia, and have spoken of the need to create a "multipolar world" to limit US power.
Worst still, according to Baker, is the fact that Britain appears to be pushing the pro-constitution line to Washington officials. London, it seems, has persuaded Bush's people that were Europe to have a single foreign policy, Britain could deliver the EU as an ally every time the US required Europe's support.
Blair's people are deluded. Here's Baker:
"Yet once again it seems that a combination of British naivety and misplaced confidence about its ability to control things European has infected the Government’s judgment. The real leaders of the EU — in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, are quite clear about where they want this newly united Europe to go, and it is not in London’s direction, still less Washington’s."
Baker adds that NATO could be the first casualty of a common European foreign policy. If Europe, rather than national governments, acts as the interlocutor of transatlantic affairs, the "genuinely multilateral" NATO will have had its day.
Radio Free Europe?
That guy in Washington might be able to get "Europe" on the line after all. Sadly, he might not like what Mr Europe has to say.
One would expect a European foreign policy to be decided by a vote by nation states. Pro-American nations might just win this, but Washington must have unnatural faith in its ability to persuade Europe's governments of its point of view if it believes it can continue to do this forever.
A powerful foreign policy commissioner would be more Europe's style. While such a figure would be expected to be answerable to governments, the EU's nature is such that whoever occupies the role would claim that in order to create a serious foreign policy, the commissioner would have to overrule national governments. Much in the same way that the European Central Bank declares its independence as governments plead for a change in interest rates, the EU foreign office would be deaf to protests from national capitals.
And who would head up the foreign office? Well, as British prime ministers are always keen to remind us, compromises must be made in the interests of European unity. In other words, Paris would demand a Frenchman get the job (possibly as compensation for surrendering its permanent UN security council seat) and the rest of us would meekly go along with it.
Fortunately, the US is far from convinced that a common foreign policy for Europe is worth having. Donald Rumsfeld is cooler on the idea than Ms Rice and more importantly, it is unlikely that central European nations, who are more attached to NATO than Mr Schröder, are not keen federalists when it comes to foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the danger is there - and Britain's government is looking like an increasingly reckless guardian of the nation's independence.
Propaganda
Eurobabble
18 February, 2005
Since the EU expanded from 15 to 25 nations last May, the number of official languages has leapt to 20. Here at EURSOC we celebrate diversity, but the EU is discovering that diversity, and in particular linguistic diversity, has a price. Last year's bill for translations was £464 million. In 2007, when EU documents must be translated into languages like Maltese and Latvian, the bill is set to rise to £741 million.
The Telegraph reports that Europe's shortage of translators able to handle cross-translations from some of the more obscure languages has led to private firms coining it in, sometimes charging around 10 pence a word for documents.
Maltese translators are doing particularly well, perhaps because of their small numbers: Only the most important EU documents are being translated into Maltese at present, while Brussels looks for 120 translators to translate the entire body of EU law - 80,000 pages of it - before 2007.
Cutting out the middle man
Remember how we reported yesterday that Britain's government was waving away cash from Brussels, worried that if the EU was seen to be funding pro-constitution propaganda it would be counterproductive for the Yes campaign? Well, we would hate you to think that no EU money was reaching Brussels' propagandists at all.
Instead of relying on the somewhat embarrassed government to hand out the readies to grateful Eurofanatics, the EU has bypassed the government and passed the cash on to universities, think tanks and sundry pro-federalist groups.
According to The Times, about a million Euros a year is spent on organisations that promote the EU - including a number of think tanks staffed by swivel-eyed federalists. |
